La ignorancia como modelo moral

Descending from the Acropolis, you come to the east side of the city and an avenue named for its shrines, where another temple is located, it too most fair, of the goddess who has been allotted the city….Everything as far as the seacoast is resplendent with gymnasia, agoras, theaters, precincts, harbors – natural and artificial beauties competing with each other. Nothing is without adornment or use. (Or. 17.10-11)4

Thus Aristides describes a central district of Smyrna. The formulaic nature of his description is immediately apparent. No individual buildings are mentioned, and even the three temples given as landmarks are not named. Instead, we are given a sweeping overview of a unified and harmonious cityscape, characterized by a conventional set of public buildings and organized by broad avenues (Fig. 16). This stylization can be attributed to a number of factors.5

4 _{The translations of Aristides used in this chapter are adapted from Behr 1981.}

5 _{Perhaps the most immediate factor was the setting in which Aristides delivered his speech (see fn. 4 above); from a}

promontory south of the city, the temples on the highest hills and the main colonnaded boulevards in the city below would have been virtually the only visible landmarks visible amid a sea of tile roofs and checkerboard streets. It may be imagined, moreover, that both the proconsul and the citizens waiting to receive him would expect such a

famously beautiful city (e.g. Strabo 14.1.37 [646]; Martyr. Pion. 4; Philostr., VA 4.7; Dio Chrys., Or. 38.47) to be described as harmonious and uniform. Pont 2009: 195-6 suggests that Aristides’ description was aimed primarily at

173

Its ultimate source, however, was an ideal that proposed the corporate citizen body as the essence of a city, and interpreted the general appearance of the urban fabric as a manifestation not only of the populace’s characteristic virtues, but also of its political unity and vitality.

Although cities had been formally eulogized since at least the Classical period, civic encomium emerged as a distinct part of the rhetorical repertoire only in the late first century,6

apparently in response to both the growing prestige of epideictic rhetoric and a burgeoning interest in expressions of civic identity. In keeping with traditional conceptions of the polis as an integral community, the focus of the new genre was the corporate identity of the citizen body. Its favorite themes, accordingly, centered on the emergence and expression of the citizen body’s characteristics: a city’s foundation, the virtues manifested by its inhabitants, and the excellence of the site and buildings in and through which citizen virtues were expressed. These emphases – ultimately adapted from the rhetorical conventions for praising the lineage, achievements, and appearance of great men7– allowed a city to be assessed in terms of the collective characteristics of its populace,8 and ultimately determined the part assigned to the built environment in encomia.

Imperial orators assumed that the definitive characteristics9 of a city’s inhabitants would be

the Smyrnaeans in the audience; Bérenger 2009: 134-5 speculates that Aristides, knowing nothing about the proconsul, simply trotted out a familiar subject.

6 _{Basic treatments of civic encomium include Pernot 1993: 178-216 and Classen 1980: 4-37; cf. Pont 2010: 212-20.}

Pernot 1993: 178-88 surveys the precursors and development of civic encomium; cf. Loraux 2006.

7 _{Quint., Inst. 3.7.26; Hermog., Prog. 18.9-14}

8 _{To praise a city was to praise its aggregate populace: see, e.g., Ps.-Dion. 275.21; Men. Rh. I, 363.10; II, 394.9;}

431.11-12. Even if not explicitly personified, cities were often assigned traits like honor or courage (Pernot 1993: 191-5).

9 _{In the first treatise ascribed to Menander Rhetor, perhaps the most systematic discussion of their significance, the}

collective qualities of a citizen body are identified not only as indicators of a common heritage, but also as the predicates of effective government (I, 359.23-60.16), cultural achievement (360.17-61.3), and social order (361.4- 10). Menander organizes these qualities by the canonical four virtues. Justice he identifies with piety toward the gods, fair dealing with men, and reverence for the deceased (361.17-63.26). Temperance he equates with the maintenance of social relations and decorum in both public and private (363.28-64.19). To prudence he assigns local law and customs (364.10-16). Courage, finally, he associates with both martial valor and fortitude in the face of natural disaster (364.17-65.8). Pernot 1993: 210-14 provides an extensive list of the attributes and achievements for which cities were praised.

174

manifest in its appearance. In a description of Corinth, for example, Aristides claimed that the refined character and cultural accomplishments of the Corinthians were instinct in the sculptures and paintings that line their streets, and even in the appearance of their schools and gymnasia.10

Dio Chrysostom, likewise, criticized the Rhodians for failing to live up to the past greatness implicit in the appearance of their ancient buildings.11

The place of individual buildings in encomia, however, was disputed. Deploring the financial and social problems exacerbated by rampant building, many orators connected an excessive interest in construction with insolvency, empty competition, and disorder.12 These

complaints seem to have been informed by a general sense that unregulated building could somehow obscure the citizen qualities that comprised a city’s true essence. Aristides urged representatives of the leading cities of Asia to “believe that the old saying is true: that neither walls, nor odeons, nor stoas, nor [any other] adornments of inanimate objects are cities, but that cities are men who know to trust in themselves” (Or. 23.68).13 _{In keeping with civic encomium’s}

origins in personal eulogy, the relationship between citizens and buildings was frequently compared to that of body and soul: external beauty was desirable, but no substitute for inner virtue.14 At least in theory, then, the only civic buildings worth describing were those that

mirrored or complemented the characteristic qualities of citizen body. Some orators included in

10 _{Or. 46.28. Cf. Aristid., Or. 1.246-7 (as cited in Oliver 1968); 25.2, 4-5, 33; Dio Chrys., Or. 31.146-7, 40.8, 47.16-}

17; Lib., Or. 11.270.

11 _{Or. 31.160; Cf. Aristid., Or. 24.59; Plu., Per. 12.1}

12 _{Passages asserting the primacy of civic harmony over ostentatious buildings: Dio Chrys., Or. 32.18, 87; 33.17,}

36.13, 48.9, 79.1; [Ap. Ty.], Ep. 32;Aristid. 21.9; 23.31, 69, 76; 25.48ff; Luc., Anach. 20, Dom. 7; Philostr., VA 4.7. It should be noted that these are criticisms of the excesses, rather than the practice, of civic building.A remarkable number of sophists – most notably Dio Chrysostom (Or. 40, 45, and 47) – were prominent builders in their communities; see, e.g., Philostr., VS 511, 548-51, 568, 605; Aristid., Or. 32.17.

13 _{Compare Aristid., Or. 3.298, 25.64. Aristides is referring to a much-quoted dictum of Alcaeus: “ἄνδρες γὰρ}

πόλιο̣ς πύργος ἀρεύιος” (Lobel-Page, fr. 112.10). See Pernot 1993: 196-7 on the extensive discourse surrounding this apothegm in imperial Greek rhetoric.

14 _{Comparison to body and soul: Luc., Anach. 20; Dio, Or. 39.5. Cf. Aristid., Or. 23.31, Philostr., VA 5.22, 8.18;}

175

their encomia only the buildings they identified as direct expressions of civic virtue; the author of the first treatise ascribed to Menander Rhetor, for example, suggests mentioning only a city’s temples, the manifestations of its piety.15 Most encomiasts, however, adopted a more generous definition. In his description of Smyrna, as we have seen, Aristides mentions the city’s three most prominent temples, its grand boulevards, and an undifferentiated conspectus of public buildings and spaces: gymnasia, agoras, theaters, precincts, harbors, baths and fountains (Or. 17.11).16 _{Other encomia provide broadly comparable lists.}17 _{These buildings met a basic standard}

of relevance to the citizen body’s essential functions and activities – Aristides, for example, insisted that the edifices he described in Smyrna were both useful and beautiful18 – and were apparently thought to embody a city’s qualities in at least the general sense of commemorating its history and accomplishments.

On a more basic level, the buildings listed in encomia also advertised a city’s political identity. The generic emphasis on the corporate citizen body was, as we have seen, based in a time-honored ideal of the polis as an integral community, which posited a distinctive set of social and political institutions, and thus a civic built environment dominated by a corresponding array of public buildings. The equation is epitomized by Pausanias’ famous dismissal of Panopeus:

From Chaeroneia it is twenty stades to Panopeus, a city of the Phocians, if one can give the name of city to those who possess no government offices, no gymnasium, no theater, no market-place, no water descending to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like mountain cabins, right on a ravine. Nevertheless, they have boundaries with their neighbors, and even send delegates to the Phocian assembly. (10.4.1)

15 _{I, 362.27, 365.18-24; cf. Aristid., Or. 1.143; 23.80; 27.14, 40-1; Quint., Inst. III.7.26-7.}

16 _{Aristides recycles the same basic list in each of his descriptions of Smyrna (Or. 18.6, 21.5, 23.20; cf. 26.97).} 17 _{Lists of buildings: Men. Rh. II, 382.15-16, 383.7-9, 386.22-9; Dio Chrys., Or. 6.5, 33.18; Aristid., Or. 1.246,}

26.8; Ps.-Dion. 257.14; Poll., Onom. 9.35ff; Orac. Sib. 13.64-6.

18 _{Or. 17.11; cf. 1.250, 23.20; cf. Luc., Dom. 8. It is noteworthy that Aristides praises the use of marble – but only, it}

176

This passage, often quoted to illustrate the new prominence accorded to civic buildings in the imperial period, attests the continued importance of the institutions, and above all of the

corporate community, which such buildings were supposed to shelter and advertise; Pausanias is disappointed in Panopeus’ appearance precisely because the city possesses the characteristic institutions of a polis but lacks the representative buildings.19 In the case of Smyrna – whose

civic status was never in doubt – reference to buildings traditionally associated with the polis was, in part, purely conventional. It also served, however, to advertise the citizen body’s possession of the corresponding “political virtues” –and thus its embodiment of a social ideal.

These associations, founded on the model of a community unified by history, manners, and social organization, urged orators to pay particular attention to the general appearance and harmony of cityscapes. This did not entail close attention to individual buildings,20 which were

seen as significant only, or at least primarily, as components of a larger cityscape unified by its association with the indwelling citizen body. When, for example, Aristides claimed that the history and culture of Corinth are instinct in her appearance, he cited as evidence not isolated landmarks, but the general aspect and cumulative effect of the city’s public spaces.21 _{He seems to}

have imagined a comparably organic relationship between the definitive qualities of the Smyrnaeans and the appearance of their city. At the beginning of his encomium, he compared Smyrna to a phoenix, repeatedly resurrected after disasters by the efforts of a unified and unchanging citizen body.22 He was more explicit in a letter written a few years later to solicit

19 _{On the implications of this passage, see the discussion in Pretzler 2007: 91-104. Cf. Dio Chrys., Or. 7.38-9.} 20 _{Very few encomia of individual buildings have survived. Lucian’s Hippias, perhaps the best extant example,}

describes a small bath rather as a reflection of its builder’s qualities than as an instantiation of civic virtue.

21 _{In a similar vein, a number of encomiasts associated the appearance of a city’s walls –a traditional synecdoche –}

with the qualities of its citizens (e.g. Aristid., Or. 25.8, 26.79; Dio Chrys., Or. 36.6, 45.12; cf. Him., Or. 39.6). A city’s streets were sometimes accorded comparable significance (e.g. Aristid., Or. 17.10-11, 23.13-14; cf. 25.6-8).

177

earthquake relief from Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, whom he encouraged to remember how, in the course of a visit some years before, Smyrna’s appearance had confirmed her status as “the most cultivated of your possessions” (Or. 19.2).23 _{Toward the end of his letter, Aristides}

begs the emperors to restore not only the city’s imperial cult sanctuary and trophies of victory in alliance with Rome, but the city’s whole form (σχῆμα), in recognition of Smyrnaean fidelity (19.10-11). Even if Aristides did not mean by this that Smyrna’s loyalty was somehow implicit in every part of the urban fabric, his description clearly indicates that he understood both the beauty and the ultimate significance of the city’s appearance to be something more than the sum of its monuments.

In his encomium, however, Aristides makes no apparent effort to connect the civic qualities of the Smyrnaeans – of which he singles out martial prowess and cultivated tastes (Or. 17.5-7) – with the city’s appearance. While it is possible that, in so short a speech, such

elaboration was undesirable, Aristides may have made no comment on Smyrna’s government or internal organization for the simple reason that he had no need to: for a Greek orator and

educated audience in the era of the Second Sophistic, Smyrna, a city celebrated for its Hellenic culture, was automatically associated invested with the traditional qualities of a polis. The entire description, in fact, can be read as an assimilation of Smyrna’s physical characteristics to time- honored ideals of political and social organization.