The concerns of contemporary politics were never far from the Platonists, for three reasons. First, basic training in rhetoric, a sine qua non of philosophical education, necessarily entailed the discussion and internalization of political topics. Second, the literature of the Second Sophistic reveals a clear awareness of and engagement with Roman politics; the classmates of the philosophers—and the Gnostics—were hardly quietists. Third, the socioeconomic background of the sophists as well as the philosophers was one of wealth and, often, political connections. As we will see, the deeply political background of philosophy in the second and third centuries CE is the proper frame for much of Plotinus’s anti-Gnostic rhetoric.
In antiquity, the rhetorical arts—and the education system which rested on them—were developed for political purposes.66 The study of basic rhetorical exercises (progymnasmata) involved various exercises designed to prepare the student for advanced work in mock-deliberative and legal speech and eventually the use of oratory in public life.67 This training was steeped in the classical texts of Greek history and epic poetry. Stock themes rehearsed for use in oratory included invented narratives (πλάσματα) and Greek political history, but especially Homer, the unifying reference for exercises ranging from learning the alphabet to composing a prose declamation.68 In other words, much like an undergraduate humanities course today, students would have probably read about Achilleus and Peleus before getting to Plato, much less Parmenides commentaries. The education shared by philosophers and sophists readied them for public life and enabled them to speak the universal language of Hellenism.
Deep involvement in the civic sphere did not necessarily entail fondness of the Romans. Generally, the sophistic texts do not reject Roman rule, which seems to be tolerated as a fact of life.69 Plutarch writes approvingly of it, and disparagingly of Greece’s infighting and decline.70 The sophist Aelius Aristides, too, contrasts the Hellenic and Roman attempts at self-rule.71 Philosopher and master rhetorician Dio Chrysostom insists that the present age is not evil and never speaks out against the greater regime.72 The same is true of the historian Pausanias, and the famous doctor Galen.73 Engagement with Roman politics was a marked improvement for the relationship between Greek thinkers and autocrats—the emperors Vespasian and Domitian appear to have despised philosophers, and “talking back” to a ruler is a cliché in Greek philosophy.74 The Romans were hardly considered to be Hellenes themselves; rather, they are like barbarians who occasionally imbibe the draught of Hellenic education (παιδεία).75 This is particularly evident in Plutarch’s Lives, where his Roman subjects rarely behave like sophisticates, and Political Advice, where Roman rule is tolerated only on the grounds of Greece’s own factionalism.76 Yet even if the Romans themselves were considered uncultured, Rome was the best place to acquire—and demonstrate—one’s education.77
The ambivalent attitude of Hellenophone intellectuals toward the government is in part explained by their privileged socioeconomic backgrounds and high standing in their communities. The sophists came from wealthy and often politically influential families.78 They had friends in high places, commonly serving as intermediaries between their towns and the emperor himself.79 Some sophists, like Polemo and Herodes, were personally beloved by the emperors.80 Thanks to the crowds they could draw, crowds that included emperors, towns invited sophists to open shop in hope of stimulating the local economy.81 There even was a tertiary pilgrimage effect whereby great sophists traveled to meet other great sophists, of course with their entourage in tow.82 Aside from simply teaching and speaking,83 sophists built monuments,84 alleviated local factional politics,85 officiated over civic cults and festivals,86 served as administrators and military leaders,87 and were general public benefactors.88
This evidence coheres well with what we know of the social environment of the Platonists from the first to third centuries CE, which was also elite, public, and male.89 Our information about the lives of the Middle Platonists is admittedly scarce, but Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Apuleius all assume that the philosopher has the ways and means to be active in public life, and expect him to do so.90 Inscriptional evidence also testifies to the stature of philosophers in the public sphere.91 The word “philosopher” (φιλόσοφος) is also used in honorary inscriptions to designate morality and wisdom in public life; philosophy was thus considered an appropriate reference for a public life well lived.92
The Neoplatonists mingled with politicians constantly and extolled political activity.93 Plotinus’s benefactrix has already been mentioned; his circle included senators and politicians.94 Although he discouraged some of his students from pursuing politics further, he also intervened in political disputes, joined the entourage of Emperor Gordian, befriended Emperor Gallienus, and attempted to found a Platonic city-state (“Platonopolis”).95 Porphyry came from a wealthy, noble Syrian family—his name at Tyre was “Malkhus” (from the Phoenician/Punic for “king”), so Amelius nicknamed him “Basileus,” while Longinus dubbed him “Porphyrios” (“royal purple”).96 While he, Plotinus, and Iamblichus certainly subordinated the political virtues to the contemplative, they nonetheless counted them as virtues, early but necessary steps for the embodied soul on the road to contemplation, not to be disparaged.97 Similarly, Porphyry has only kind words for one of Plotinus’s politically ambitious students, Castricius Firmus.98 Iamblichus too came from a royal family in Syria (and was named accordingly), whither he returned after completing his study in the West.99 His school’s legacy was carried on by his patron, Sopater, who met an unfortunate end in court intrigue.100 The Athenian academy of Proclus was funded by wealthy benefactors whose families remained involved with the school across generations.101 Proclus himself participated in local politics.102 Even in the dark, final days of the school, Damascius too advocated the philosophers’ political activism.103
One can also observe significant differences between the public lives of sophists and philosophers. For instance, in the confines of imperial quarters, it was the duty of the sophist to flatter, as distinct from philosophical frankness (παρρησία).104 Although philosophers served in the public sphere, the bulk of their “performances”—lectures, debates, writing, philosophizing—was generally in-house, although public debates did happen.105 Rivalry between sophists was normal, at times puerile, and occasionally applauded and enjoyed by high society, and even the participants.106 Meanwhile, philosophers had rivalries, but this never bled over into humiliation or, significantly, authoritarianism. Such differences notwithstanding, most philosophers tended to be influential citizens, pundits, public intellectuals, or beneficiaries of wealth.107 At the same time, in all of these spheres, sophists, philosophers, and their coteries saw themselves working not on behalf of the Romans but the Greeks.
GOING TO SACRIFICE
The noun Ἑλληνισμός—an “imitator of the Greeks, Greek-ifier”—is first used in 2 Maccabees 4:13, but in the Second Sophistic the term becomes associated with a kind of pan-Hellenism, articulated under the aegis of παιδεία (“education,” or “culture”).108 Moreover, it came to indicate adherence to the civic cults associated with the Greek and Roman pantheon, as in the literature of the emperor Julian the Apostate (mid-fourth century CE).109 Thus the term “Hellene” is preferable to “pagan” to describe the Hellenophone intellectuals of late antiquity.110 These Hellenes we see portrayed in the literature of the Second Sophistic associated popular Greek religion and civic cult, a cultic conservatism that is also shared with the Neoplatonists. Like the political activism that philosophers took for granted, this cultic conservatism was also a crucial issue for Plotinus in his battle with the Gnostics.
The urban centers of the Second Sophistic were Athens, Smyrna, and Ephesus, yet for Philostratus, Hellas no longer had a strictly geographical sense but instead had a cultural
