Town and Gown in the Orations of Choricius of Gaza

1 Town and Gown in he O a ions o Cho icius o Gaza Fo ini Hadji o i Abs ac This chap e looks a how Cho icius ep esen s and ‘cons uc s’ his na i e ci y, Gaza, as an ideal in ellec ual space: a p i ileged ci y o lea ning, a peace ul and calm en i onmen in which ideas can be exchanged, and whe e own and gown no only coexis ha moniously side by side bu a e also mu ually suppo i e. In his encomias ic o a ions Cho icius places a s ong emphasis on he Gazan o icials’ skills in he non- iolen esolu ion o con lic s, while in Declama ion 12 he o a o -he o (an idealised e sion o Cho icius himsel ) appea s as he gua an o o he ci y’s well-being and p es ige. In oduc ion Cho icius, he s uden and successo o P ocopius a he chai o he o ic in Gaza, has le us a numbe o wo ks, which can la gely be di ided in o wo ca ego ies: on he one hand we ha e encomias ic o a ions (panegy ics, une al o a ions, wedding speeches) o p ominen membe s o Gazan socie y, and, on he o he , a numbe o declama ions, ha is, he o ical exe cises o display speeches, closely connec ed wi h he ac i i ies o he School.1 While schola s ha e mined he i s g oup o o a ions o his o ical in o ma ion on he local landscape, socie y, and ins i u ions,2 he declama ions, deli e ed in a pe sona di e en om ha o he o a o himsel , and dealing wi h my hological and his o ical hemes o wi h s ock ques ions (based on s anda dised imagina y scena ios), ha e so a a ac ed e y li le a en ion, seen as essen ially ex aneous o con empo a y deba es.3 Howe e , as he cul u al mo emen some imes called he ‘Thi d Sophis ic’ is becoming inc easingly isible in la e an ique li e a y s udies,4 Cho icius is also beginning o ecei e mo e a en ion no only as an impo an sou ce o he la e an ique u ban and social landscape o Gaza, bu also as an educa o and a li e a y a is , who shapes he in ellec ual and li e a y landscape o his na i e ci y in pa icula and he G eek Eas in gene al.5 This chap e will ake in o conside a ion wo ks om bo h ca ego ies, aiming o examine how Cho icius ep esen s Gaza in he en i e y o his oeu e, no in e ms o i s physical landscape, bu as an ideal in ellec ual space: a p i ileged ci y o lea ning, a peace ul and calm en i onmen in which ideas can be exchanged, and whe e own and gown no only coexis 2 ha moniously side by side bu a e also mu ually suppo i e. The e would be, o cou se, signi ican limi a ions in a emp ing o ace he eal Gaza in bo h ca ego ies o wo ks: he encomias ic o a ions a e p one o bla an exagge a ion, while he declama o y gen e posi s a ic i ious uni e se, which can only obliquely e e o (o commen on) con empo a y eali y. The po ous bounda y sepa a ing ac and ic ion, his o ical au ho and speaking pe sona (in he declama ions) o eali y and hype bole (in he encomias ic o a ions) us a es a s aigh o wa dly his o icis eading, bu a he same ime allows us o look beyond his o ical ac s and in o he ideology o peace and ha mony, gal anised in he School o Gaza. Cho icius will be seen o place a s ong emphasis on he Gazan o icials’ skills in he non- iolen esolu ion o con lic s, wi h he o a o (an ideal e sion o whom appea s in he declama ion analysed below) as he na u al champion o he econcilia o y powe o speech. Whe he o no Cho icius’ ep esen a ion o Gaza as a peace-lo ing ci y has some basis in his o ical eali y is a moo poin ;6 wha is impo an o he pu poses o his chap e is ha Cho icius conside s p omo ing he alues o peace and econcilia ion as one o his main du ies as he ci y’s leading eache and o a o . This a i ude, i will be sugges ed, is a co olla y o his belie ha he powe o speech (and especially e ined, he o ical speech) and diplomacy is supe io and much p e e able o mili a y migh , and, consequen ly, ha e en mili a y men should use pe suasion, ins ead o iolence, whene e possible. The o a o and eache o he o ic hus eme ges as a powe ul igu e himsel : a ype o he o a he se ice (and occasionally also he escue) o his ci y, and, a leas i we belie e Cho icius’ own sel - p omo ion, he gua an o o his ci y’s well-being and p es ige. P aising Ma cian – and all o Gaza Two o Cho icius’ encomias ic speeches, O a ions 1 and 2, deli e ed in p aise o Bishop Ma cian, ha e o a long ime been s udied by li e a y schola s as well as a his o ians and a chaeologis s, since hey include leng hy and de ailed desc ip ions o signi ican u ban landma ks.7 The i s O a ion (o Fi s Panegy ic o Ma cian), deli e ed in 535–536, p aised he Bishop o ha ing cons uc ed o eno a ed he chu ch o S . Se gius, while he second was deli e ed some ime be ween 536 and 548 upon he inaugu a ion o he chu ch o S . S ephen.8 Apa om p o iding ekph aseis ( ha is, de ailed desc ip ions) o he wo chu ches, Cho icius men ions a numbe o o he u ban ea u es, such as he ago a, po icoes, ba hhouses, walls, and o i ica ions – all in connec ion o his objec i e o lauding Bishop 3 Ma cian, c edi ed wi h ei he commissioning new edi ices o o he wise imp o ing on he buil en i onmen o he ci y. While he in o ma ion Cho icius p o ides on he physical and u ban landscape o Gaza is indeed in aluable, wha is signi ican o he pu poses o his chap e is Cho icius’ cons uc ion, in hese speeches, o Gaza as he ideal ci y and i s inhabi an s as he ideal ci izen body. Cho icius’ classically amed p aise o he ci y, whose u ban space is ‘upda ed’ and Ch is ianised by i s Bishop, endows Gaza wi h he p es ige o he g ea cen es o Hellenism. As Cho icius’ classical and e udi e he o ic is b ough o bea on a landscape ha mus ha e looked inc easingly un-classical,9 he e o s o he he o in p o iding i id and las ing pic u es o he new buildings (and he people who commissioned and used hem),10 should be seen as pa allel o hose o he Bishop, al hough pe haps unning o di e en di ec ions: while Ma cian enews and, in a way, mode nises Gaza, Cho icius in es s i wi h he glo y o classical an iqui y in language ca e ully calcula ed o e oke he glo ies o he classical pas while no con lic ing wi h his audience’s Ch is ian belie s.11 An impo an elemen in he sel -de ini ion o he educa ed eli es in he la e an ique G eek- speaking wo ld was hei sha ing in paideia, ha is, classical educa ion and cul u e. While he knowledge and emula ion o he classical pas is a heme ha uns h ough all o pos - classical G eek li e a u e, Gazan au ho s seem pa icula ly conce ned wi h how hey measu e up agains he glo ies o classical an iqui y, and especially ha o democ a ic A hens.12 In a numbe o passages Cho icius compa es and con as s his con empo a y, six h cen u y CE Gaza o i h cen u y BCE A hens, concei ed as he pinnacle o G eek li e a u e, philosophy, and ci ilisa ion in gene al. Pe haps su p isingly o a mode n audience, he compa ison always wo ks in Gaza’s a ou .13 In he Dialexis, ha is, he p elimina y alk, which Cho icius deli e ed be o e his Fi s Panegy ic o Ma cian, he o a o speaks o he es i al ha has b ough all he ci izens o Gaza oge he , and in he con ex o which hey celeb a e he new (o eno a ed) chu ch o S Se gius. Wha comes na u ally o Cho icius, as a pos - classical man o le e s, is o each back o he classical pas and look a how he p esen es i al compa es o hose o ancien G eece: Now a Spa a, when he Hyacin hia is celeb a ed – o he ci izens o Spa a honou he you h [Hyacin hus] – a cho us o indi iduals o he same age as he honou and sing o he accompanimen o ly e and pipe, and maidens dance o he hy hm o he song; o people who li e a ma ial li e a e no well e sed in celeb a ing by means o o a o y. Bu he e, my iends, we ollow bo h he pleasan p ac ices o Spa a and he mo e lo y 4 ones o A ica. We do no imi a e he o a o s o A hens in his espec hough: i is no ou cus om o speak cha ming decei s o ou audiences, bu we ollow he ac s whe e e hey lead us; among us, anyone who la e s would ind himsel on he de ensi e.14 (Dialexis 1.4) In his passage Gaza ou bids bo h o he ancien G eek iconic ci y-s a es, Spa a and A hens, which ep esen ed wo di e en cul u al pa adigms. Gaza is supe io o Spa a, because Spa ans a e only soldie s, who do no know how o celeb a e wi h o a o y (Cho icius’ dispa agemen o he ma ial li e is a heme which will eappea ), and i is e en supe io o A hens, because Gazan o a o y is (claimed o be) hones . Cho icius’ need o alida e Gazan in ellec ual and cul u al li e h ough compa ison wi h he classical pas is in i sel signi ican , bu wha is s iking he e is ha Cho icius pu s Gazan sup emacy down o a selec ion p ocess (as opposed o unc i ical emula ion), h ough which Gaza’s cul u al and in ellec ual li e combines he pleasan p ac ices o he Spa ans (dance) wi h he lo y o a o y (bu no la e y) o he A henians. The idea ha au ho s and eade s should selec elemen s om wi hin he classical li e a y adi ion which a e app op ia e – o me ely accep able – in e ms o Ch is ian mo ali y is a equen heme in la e an ique heo e ical discussions on he enjoymen and c ea ion o li e a u e (and echoes o i a e ound in he Fi s Panegy ic o Ma cian i sel ).15 I is s ill ema kable, howe e , ha Gaza should be ep esen ed he e as ha ing he collec i e wisdom, as a ci izen body, o imi a e hose aspec s o classical G eek li es yle(s) which a e s ill conside ed sui able and pleasan , while ejec ing wha con empo a y mo es would see as objec ionable. The ad an ageous compa ison o Gaza o A hens and Spa a e-eme ges wi hin he ex o he Fi s Panegy ic o Ma cian: Fu he mo e, in A hens i was conside ed shame ul o walk in es al p ocessions and e el wi hou a mask, and he es i als o he wises men consis ed o obscene jokes o each o he ; bu ou [ es i al] will no need such co e ing. Fo we do no show o o each o he wi h impuden ongues, while p op ie y shines o h in e en he mos waggish o ci izens, so ha e en i someone appea s in he middle o a ga he ing wi h a h eadba e ga men he does no seem o de ia e om p esc ibed beha iou . The Spa ans a e also said o ha e celeb a ed hei es i als wi h deco um, and did no allow anyone o enjoy oo much licence on he occasion, on pain o su e ing he g ea es punishmen acco ding o he law. Bu since p op ie y is p esen among us na u ally, we do no need he ins uc ion o he law. (Laud. Ma c. I 91–2). 5 In i s ob ious exagge a ion, Cho icius’ speech goes beyond p aise o he Bishop o e en o he ci y and i s new edi ices, and ad e ises he es i al and he beha iou o all Gazan ci izens. Gazans a e collec i ely decla ed mo e deco ous han ‘ he wises men’ ( he ancien A henians) and mo e sel -con olled han he mos disciplined G eeks ( he ancien Spa ans). The A henian es i als a e unaccep able in e ms o con empo a y mo ali y, because hey included obscene jokes (a e e ence o Old Comedy),16 while he deco um o Spa an es i als was, in a way, alse o me ely supe icial, as i was en o ced by law. Bo h ancien G eek pa adigms a e a leas pa ly ejec ed, and Gazans a e said o p e ail, since hey ha e p op ie y ( o semnon / semno ês) as an inna e quali y, meaning ha e en in he absence o law (o app op ia e clo hing!) hey a e able o sel -police hei beha iou .17 In he Second Panegy ic o Ma cian he same heme ge s a new wis : The ou es i als o me ly amous h oughou G eece, always p esen ed compe i i e con es , and di ided he spec a o s among hose who we e compe ing and, inci ing hei hea s o ange , caused i econcilable animosi ies. In ou es i al, hough, he qua elsome con es s and he common c ies and ulga dancing app op ia e a he o pe o mances o Dionysus, all [ hese] a e shunned. (Laud. Ma c. II 70) He e, he Gazan es i al is p aised no only o i s p op ie y (in no including ulga spec acles),18 bu also o shunning p ecisely he elemen ha was a he hea o classical G eek es i als: compe i ion. Rega ded by Cho icius as di isi e and dis up i e, con es s a e ejec ed, since hey cause he objec ionable emo ion o ange , which in u n causes ‘i econcilable animosi ies’.19 As i will be seen la e on, o Cho icius, e y ew hings a e deemed wo se han an animosi y which is beyond econcilia ion. Whe he e lec ing his o ical eali y o no , Cho icius shows ha one o he quali ies he mos alues in his ci y’s in ellec ual and cul u al li e is i s lack o con lic . Academic li e in Gaza acco ding o Cho icius The alues o peace, ha mony, and p op ie y a e also a he hea o Cho icius’ ep esen a ion o how he Gazan School is un. In he Fune al O a ion o P ocopius, his old eache , Cho icius claims ha diso de and con usion g ipped he A henian assembly when Pe icles was absen , ‘bu a he i s sigh o his appea ance, he assembly was ans o med. Bu you 6 would see P ocopius’ lock e aining he same deco um whe he o no P ocopius was p esen , because good conduc had been i mly implan ed in hem’ (O . 8.6). Again, he A henian pa adigm is c ucial, since he excellence o P ocopius as a eache has o be ead agains he legenda y s a esman Pe icles and his command o e he A henian assembly. And ye again, he Gazan ‘assembly’ ( his ime, speci ically, P ocopius’ s uden s) ou bids he A henian, o Gazan s uden s ha e decency and good conduc ‘ oo ed’ in hem (ἐρριζωµένης τῆς εὐκοσµίας /e izômenês ês eukosmias), and do no equi e cons an supe ision, con a y o he A henian ci izens. E en i we ake wha Cho icius says o he Gazan School wi h a pinch o sal (as we should, since, a e all, his is a une al eulogy), i is elling ha Cho icius insis s on he s uden s’ good conduc and deco um. A he e y leas , i he e had been s uden io s o b awling on Gaza’s s ee s, Cho icius would no be emphasising his aspec . La e An ique ‘uni e si y ci ies’ in ac o en su e ed om he an ics o diso de ly s uden s. Fou h-cen u y A hens is a pa icula ly no o ious example: an economically dep essed ci y, whose only wo ld-class indus y was i s School, a ended by weal hy (mos ly o eign) s uden s, who would habi ually io h ough he s ee s.20 Libanius, he amous o a o om An ioch who wen o A hens o s udy he o ic as a young man, men ions in his Au obiog aphy (O . 1.21) e e yday ski mishes and a ‘g ea ba le’ in which almos all s uden s pa icipa ed.21 The eache s we e o en in ol ed in, i no mo i a ing, hese iolen inciden s, and hey we e ce ainly behind he o cible ec ui men s o new s uden s immedia ely upon hei a i al – a ‘cus om’ imposed on Libanius himsel .22 In one o his Le e s (Ep. 715.3), Libanius says ha he saw many s uden s bea ing sca s om wounds in lic ed in he Lyceum, and opines ‘[A henian] eache s hamme ou (i.e. educa e) soldie s a he han o a o s’. Hime ius, a con empo a y o Libanius and a eache a A hens, also indica es ha b awls and io s had become an expec ed pa o he A henian s uden expe ience, e en hough he does no seem o app o e o he iolence. Se e al o his O a ions a e add essed o ebellious s uden s, who skip lec u es because o hei in ol emen in iolen con lic s.23 Among hese, O a ion 16 is signi ican in ha i p esen s he o a o ’s speech as a d ug o emedy, able o e adica e he s i e and in ense emo ions which ha e aken hold o his s uden s: ‘swee and all-wise speech, which, like a d ug, is able o ex inguish emo ions ha swell up om he dep hs o he hea ’ (O . 16.1). Hime ius is, in ac , an impo an p eceden o an idea ha Cho icius also seems o espouse (as i will be a gued la e on): ha o a o y has he abili y and 7 du y o ex inguish passions, and ha he success ul o a o (and especially eache o o a o y) should be able o b ing an end o con lic .24 Re e ences o s uden iolence o b awling a e en i ely absen om Cho icius’ oeu e, and, al hough his does no necessa ily mean ha Cho icius’ ep esen a ion is accu a e, i could be signi ican ha in his Dialexeis (‘p elimina y alks’), which abound in in o ma ion on school li e in Gaza,25 he desc ip ions o inciden s happening in- o ou -side he class oom o en in ol e dissen ing opinions bu ne e open con lic . The e is only one episode in which Cho icius seems o ha e el h ea ened. In Dialexis 5.4–6 he o a o says ha his s uden s o en asked him o declaim, bu he kep pos poning his pe o mance because he wan ed o ga he oge he he igh audience, hose ‘knowledgeable abou eloquence’. A some poin , Cho icius inds himsel su ounded by a c owd o young men asking him insis en ly o declaim, and each one appea ing mo e eage han he o he .26 Cho icius asks hem no o ge oo ‘pushy’, o , li e ally, ‘ ull o ashness’ (θράσους / h asous). As soon as hey hea he wo d ‘ ashness’, hey elbow each o he , whispe ing, ‘This ellow seems o be a cowa d’. Cho icius eels s ung by he ema k, and decides o p esen his speech.27 This is he mos iolen beha iou ha Gazan s uden s can exhibi , acco ding o he e idence we ha e in Cho icius, and e en he e he sugges ion o iolence (o me ely ashness) could concei ably be an indica ion o he s uden s’ keenness o lis en o and lea n om hei eache , hus ul ima ely e lec ing well on Cho icius’ own skills as a declaime .28 O he inciden s desc ibed in he Dialexeis show ha , occasionally, aspec s o Cho icius’ pe o mances came unde c i icism, bu his was oiced in a mo e o less ci ilised way, and Cho icius p esen s himsel as add essing all censu e success ully. Dialexis 17 in oduces he second hal o Cho icius’ Declama ion 8, i led ‘A Spa an Ci izen’. Cho icius explains ha he was o ced o in e up his pe o mance he p e ious day, because he speech was oo leng hy, and his oice, as he says, ‘ e used o minis e o his zeal’. The audience, which appa en ly included no only his s uden s bu also a ‘c owd’ o o he men, go up in he middle o he speech and le he hea e.29 Now Cho icius is walking home, and his s uden s esco him, as hey usually do, when one o hei iends walks up o Cho icius, and accuses him o no being laconic while declaiming on a Laconian heme, and o o ge ing his Home , who had p aised he Spa an Menelaus o speaking b ie ly and clea ly.30 Cho icius de ends himsel by ci ing an episode om Thucydides (4.15–22), whe e he Spa ans sen an embassy o A hens and spoke a g ea leng h, because he si ua ion equi ed i . The conclusion is ha , 8 Cho icius says, ‘I seemed o ge my poin ac oss o ha ellow. He wen o nodding his app o al and allowed me o b ing you he emainde o my o a ion’. Cho icius always has he las wo d (a e all, i is only his wo ds ha we ha e access o), bu , ellingly, wha seems o win he a gumen o him is his e udi ion and in en i eness in answe ing hose who challenge him, as he whole deba e is ca ied ou on he le el o allusions o classical li e a u e (his de ac o b ough up Home ; Cho icius coun e ed wi h Thucydides). Simila ly, in Dialexis 8 we lea n ha Cho icius’ audience ook o ence a one o his Home ic quo a ions. When, in he wedding speech he had deli e ed o one o his s uden s, he Epi halamium o Zacha ias, Cho icius compa ed himsel o Eumelus, quo ing Iliad 23.536 (whe e Eumelus is called bo h las and bes ), he nex day he was accused o sel -impo ance. In his Dialexis he se s o h o de end himsel agains his cha ge, poin ing ou ha his e e ence was only o he ac ha he had been la e, bu also expounding on he Home ic line, and exhibi ing his knowledge o o he , mo e app op ia e li e a y igu es o whom he would ha e compa ed himsel , had he eally wan ed o claim he was he bes speake ( he Si ens, Pinda , and Nes o ). Cho icius, howe e , is ca e ul no o appea en i ely dismissi e o his audience’s c i icism, as he app o ingly men ions Pla o’s wo ds ‘ ha a ew men who a e good a lis ening o o a ions a e mo e in imida ing o a pe son who comes o wa d o speak han an igno an mob o audi o s om he ago a’ (4).31 I appea s ha , al hough he pa ades his own lea ning as supe io , Cho icius conside s (o la e ingly claims o conside ) his audience as capable o he kind o lea ned c i icism which could po en ially emba ass an o a o . Paci is o a o y? While Cho icius seems o welcome (and, indeed, ac i ely seeks ou , as he says in Dialexis 5) hose membe s o he audience who a e knowledgeable enough o challenge his speeches, he epea edly and ocally exp esses his opposi ion o hose whose lack o gen leness and educa ion migh ac ually des abilise Gazan socie y. E en on he le el o li e a y c i icism, Cho icius a gues ha ange and disco d ha e no place in socie y, and Home should ha e hough be e be o e placing he w a h o Achilles igh a he beginning o he Iliad.32 Bu , o cou se, wha mos ly conce ns Cho icius a e he eal h ea s o he peace and s abili y o Gazan socie y: in he Second Panegy ic o Ma cian, he Bishop is p aised o ha ing b ough unde con ol some uncou h soldie s s a ioned nea Gaza, as well as hose Gazan ci izens who we e willing o eam up wi h hem. 9 When he Empe o decided o chas ise some ebels by wa , he o ces which he sen om he e had o pass by [he e]. They we e mo e ole able han [ egula ] soldie s, since hey we e held in check by impe ial o de s, bu soldie s ne e heless, ha ing coa se minds, ongues which ou un hei in elligence, and igh hands ha ou s e ched hei ongues. Thus, he ci y was being a oused by ea and dis u bed by he announcemen s om neighbou ing ci ies […] And some [o he soldie s] we e s eaming he e [in o ou ci y] and became bolde owa ds us han when hey had mis ea ed ou neighbou s […] Bu his noble gua dian o ou ci y [Ma cian], conside ing and accomplishing e e y hing which was ad an ageous, ha ing sepa a ed om he inhabi an s hose whom he saw disposed in a iendly manne owa d hem [ he soldie s] o hei own p o i , g ea ly so ened hei spi i and amed hem. (Laud. Ma c. II 23–4) Con lic esolu ion skills seem o un in Ma cian’s amily: in he Fune al O a ion o Ma ia, he Bishop’s mo he , Cho icius epo s a se ies o le e s sen by Ma ia o one o he sons, who was a ci y magis a e, asking him o in e ene in he bi e qua el be ween wo indi iduals, and ‘ eques ing a se lemen ad an ageous o each o hem’ (O . 7.20).33 And, while Cho icius p aises he Sain ly Ma ia o he meekness and simplici y, and implies elsewhe e in he o a ion ha she had no ecei ed classical educa ion,34 i is in e es ing ha he econcilia o y e o s a e execu ed p ecisely h ough le e s, which, on he one hand, would allow Ma ia o media e in a less isible manne , bu on he o he , p esuppose a ce ain le el o o mal educa ion and a e indica i e o he impo ance o educa ion in he esolu ion o con lic s. Now, Ma cian, who had s udied a he Gazan School oge he wi h Cho icius, and who may e en ha e se ed as head o he School o a sho ime a e P ocopius’ dea h and be o e Cho icius ook up ha ole35, was ob iously and empha ically an educa ed man, one whose he o ical and diploma ic skills could so en spi i s, and ame he unci ilised men who ha e no been ouched by paideia.36 Fo his is how he soldie s a e ep esen ed by Cho icius: hei minds a e un e ined, hei ongues ou un hei dim in elligence ( hey speak be o e hey hink – he pola opposi e o he o a o ), and hei hands ou s e ch hei ongues.37 Cho icius’ dispa agemen o he ma ial li e has as a consequence ha , e en when he speaks in p aise o mili a y commande s, he is anxious o poin ou ha his honou ands a e no jus capable o ma ial ea s bu also o gen leness, mildness, and pe suasion. In his Panegy ic o 16 Saliou, C. (2005) ‘L’o a eu e la ille: é lexions su l’appo de Cho ikios à la connaissance de l’his oi e e de l’espace u bain de Gaza’. In Saliou, C., ed., Gaza dans l’An iqui é Ta di e: A chéologie, hé o ique e his oi e, Ac es du colloque in e na ional de Poi ie s (6–7 mai 2004). Sale no: Helios, 171–95. Schoule , B. (2005) ‘Cho ikios déclama eu ’. In Saliou, C., ed., Gaza dans l’An iqui é Ta di e: A chéologie, hé o ique e his oi e, Ac es du colloque in e na ional de Poi ie s (6–7 mai 2004). Sale no: Helios, 117–34. So abji, R. (2000) Emo ion and Peace o Mind: F om S oic Agi a ion o Ch is ian Temp a ion. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. S enge , J. (2010) ‘Cho ikios und die Ekph asis de S ephanoski che on Gaza: Bildung und Ch is en um im s äd ischen Kon ex ’. Jah buch ü An ike und Ch is en um 53, 81–103. Telesca, C. (2011–2012) ‘Sull’o dine e la composizione del co pus di Co icio di Gaza’. Re ue des é udes a do-an iques 1, 85–109. Tomassi, G. (2015) ‘Ty an s and y annicides: be ween li e a y c ea ion and con empo a y eali y in G eek declama ion’. In Ama o, E., Ci i, F. and Huelsenbeck, B., eds., Law and E hics in G eek and Roman Declama ion. Be lin: Wal e de G uy e , 249–68. Van Hoo , L. (2010) ‘G eek he o ic and he la e Roman Empi e: he bubble o he “Thi d Sophis ic”’. An iqui é Ta di e 18, 211–24. Ven ella, G. (2014) ‘Da Dione C isos omo a Co icio: il mo i o dell’a is a alla sba a a Gaza a adizione e o ica e nuo e is anze eligiose’. In Ama o, E., Thé ene , L. and Ven ella, G., eds., Disco so pubblico e declamazione scolas ica a Gaza nella a da an ichi à: Co icio di Gaza e la sua ope a. Ba i: Edizioni di Pagina, 45–74. Walmsley, A. (1996) ‘Byzan ine Pales ine and A abia: u ban p ospe i y in la e an iqui y’. In Ch is ie, N. and Loseby, S.T., eds., Towns in T ansi ion: U ban E olu ion in La e An iqui y and he Ea ly Middle Ages. Alde sho : Scola P ess, 126–58. Wa s, E. (2005) ‘The s uden sel in la e an iqui y’. In B akke, D., Sa low, M. and Wei zman, S., eds., Religion and he Sel in An iqui y. Blooming on and Indianapolis: Indiana Uni e si y P ess, 234–51. Wa s, E. (2006) Ci y and School in La e An ique A hens and Alexand ia. Be keley and London: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess. Webb, R. (2006) ‘Rhe o ical and hea ical ic ions in he wo ks o Cho icius o Gaza’. In Johnson, S., ed., G eek Li e a u e in La e An iqui y: Dynamism, Didac icism, Classicism. Alde sho : Ashga e, 107–24. Weiss, Z. (2014) Public Spec acles in Roman and La e An ique Pales ine. Camb idge, MA. 17 Wes be g, D. (2010) Celeb a ing wi h Wo ds: S udies in he Rhe o ical Wo ks o he Gaza School. Diss. Uppsala. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 This is no o say, o cou se, ha he declama ions we e only pe o med in a school se ing; in ac , he e a e indica ions ha a leas some o hese speeches we e deli e ed in on o a wide audience; see n. 29 below. On he pe o mance con ex o he declama ions see mos ecen ly Lupi (2014). As o he De ence o he Mimes, a ex which appa en ly i s in o nei he o hese ca ego ies, I ag ee wi h Wes be g (2010, 142) in conside ing i a quasi-declama o y exe cise. T ansla ions o Cho icius used in his chap e will be aken (and occasionally adap ed) om Penella (2009) o he declama ions and p elimina y alks and Li sas (1981) o he encomias ic o a ions. 2 Fo wo ea ly examples see Abel (1931) and Li sas (1982). 3 Penella (2009, 1–8) highligh s he imeless quali y o he declama ions, and concomi an ly unde plays hei ele ance o hei con empo a y con ex (1: ‘we migh plausibly imagine hem o ha e been composed in any cen u y o he Roman Empi e om he ime o Augus us on’; 8: ‘ha e no connec ion in heme wi h he eal wo ld ha hei au ho inhabi ed’). On he con a y, G eek and Roman declama ion o he ea ly Impe ial pe iod has o en been ead in connec ion o i s his o ical con ex and i s impo ance o he o ma ion o an eli e masculine ideal; see, e.g., Gleason (1995), Gunde son (2000) and (2003). His o icising eadings o Cho icius’ declama ions a e all e y ecen : see Ven ella (2014), Tomassi (2015), and Hadji o i (2016). 4 The e m ‘Thi d Sophis ic’, coined by Pe no (1993, 14 n. 9) o desc ibe he enascence o G eek he o ic in la e an iqui y, has ecen ly come unde c i icism; see he discussions in Qui oga (2007) and Van Hoo (2010). 5 Fo Cho icius as a li e a y a is see Webb (2006), G eco (2007) and (2014), and Hadji o i (2017). 6 Schoule (2005, 117), and Manzione (2014, 195–6) poin ou ha he majo i y o Cho icius’ declama ions ha e wa as hei backg ound, which could be indica i e o he absence o peace in he Gazans’ daily li es. G eco’s (2011) s udy o Cho icius’ encomias ic o a ions concludes ha he alues p aised a e hose o peace, ha mony, and o de , ‘ he g ea es expec a ions o any oubled socie y’ (116). Fo a ep esen a ion o Gaza as a socie y in u moil and plagued by eligious con lic see he Vi a Po phy ii, whose ic i ious da e, howe e , is he i h cen u y CE. On he o he hand, Walmsley’s (1996) his o ical and a chaeological o e iew sugges s a su p ising le el o s abili y and u ban a luence in he ci ies o Pales ine and A abia be ween he ou h and six h cen u ies. 7 See, e.g., Mango (1972, 60–72), Saliou (2005), S enge (2010), and Polański (2011). 8 Fo he speci ic da es see Saliou (2005, 172). The wo O a ions a e hence o h abb e ia ed as Laud. Ma c. I and Laud. Ma c. II. 9 See Jacobs (in his olume) on he ans o ma ion o he buil ci yscape in la e an iqui y. 10 Cho icius men ions explici ly, in Laud. Ma c. I 16, he u u e eade s who will ha e access o his ex bu will no ha e seen he chu ch he is abou o desc ibe. G eco (2011, 99–101) discusses his passage and i s Pla onic unde ones. Cho icius is also explici abou he powe o his wo ds o ‘build’ he chu ch o S S ephen: in Laud. Ma c. II 59 he decla es ha he chu ch is also ‘cons uc ed’ by him, ‘no by means o s one and wood, bu h ough hose hings ha we know how o wo k’. On he o a o ’s me ali e a y claim on he powe and au ho i y o his wo ds see Hadji o i (2017). 11 Ashkenazi (2004, 207) a gues o he ha monious coexis ence in Gaza o ‘sophis s and p ies s, Hellenis ic he i age and Ch is ian de o ion’. Fo a signi ican e ision o his pic u e see S enge (2010), who sugges s ha Cho icius has o ip oe a ound he Ch is ian sensi i i ies o his audience, and ha he a oids calling o an unquali ied accep ance o classical my hs and paideia. 12 On he ci ic pa io ism o in ellec uals om la e an ique Sy ian and Pales inian ci ies, and how his was exp essed in e ms o compe i i e Hellenism, see Geige (2014, 58). Fo Aeneas o Gaza’s asse ion ha ‘ he Academy and he Lyceum a e among us’ (in Ep. 18.8–9) see, mos ecen ly, Champion (2014a), who uses his quo e in he i le o his a icle, as well as S enge in his olume. Fo a de ailed analysis o he Gazan hinke s’ con iden ans o ma ion (and adap a ion o Ch is ian s anda ds) o classical philosophy see Champion (2014b). 13 This is no ac ually as su p ising as i migh seem: la e an ique o a o s do no sh ink om p oclaiming as supe io o A hens he con empo a y ci ies which hey p aise; o an example see Hime ius’ encomium o Cons an inople in O . 41.3, wi h he commen s in Hadji o i (2014, 236–7). 14 I ha e adap ed Penella’s ansla ion o e lec he emenda ions o he G eek ex sugges ed by Co cella (2008, 450), which I ind con incing. Co cella (2014, 20–1) e isi s his passage, wi h u he commen s on Gaza’s Übe bie ung o A hens and he combina ion o se iousness and play ulness in i s cul u al li e. 15 Fo a p ime mani es a ion o his heme in a Ch is ian au ho see Basil o Caesa ea’s add ess ‘To young men, on how hey migh de i e p o i om pagan li e a u e’ (especially pa ag aph 4). The idea is no exclusi ely Ch is ian, howe e , as p eceden s can be ound in pagan mo alising ex s, such as in Plu a ch’s ‘On how a 18 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! young man should s udy poems’ (Mo alia 14.12). In he Fi s Panegy ic o Ma cian, Cho icius’ p aise o he Bishop’s educa ion highligh s his disce nmen in eading classical li e a u e: ‘while s ill a young man he culled he mos beau i ul hings om he poe ic [Muse], ga he ing on he one hand wha e e was use ul, and smiling on he o he hand a he s o ies, belie ing ha hey had been made by he Home ids o p o i less me imen ’ (Laud. Ma c. I 6). Fo a nuanced analysis o his passage see G eco (2007, 109–17). 16 This does no necessa ily de ac om he admi a ion Cho icius exp esses o A henian es i als elsewhe e: in Dialexis 22.4, o example, he app o ingly men ions an ‘A ic’ annual es i al, in which o a o s ga e he o ical displays and ac o s pu on ancien plays be o e an audience e y ‘ ond o lis ening’, o whom he Gazan audience is implici ly compa ed. In his passage, Cho icius claims ha his A ic paideia compels him o obse e A ic p ac ice. Fo he Gazan audience’s ‘big appe i e o o a o y’ see Dialexis 9.1. Fo Cho icius’ educa ion unde P ocopius as aking place ‘in A ic meadows’ see he Fune al O a ion o P ocopius (8.1.1). 17 The idea ha a man’s cha ac e can be en i ely independen om his ou wa d appea ance (and especially his clo hing) is ecu en in Cho icius (i appea s in Declama ions 3 and 11, as well as he De ence o he Mimes), and migh ha e some hing o do wi h ce ain s ands o Ch is ian ideology, exp essed mos ly in popula s o ies abou Sain s and ma y s, which dismiss d ess as a as eliable indica o o he condi ion o he inne sel ; see Hadji o i (2016). 18 Co cella (2014, 28–9) poin s ou ha i is s ange o Cho icius, he au ho o he De ence o he Mimes, o speak agains dancing and Dionysiac pe o mances, and sugges s ha his O a ion mus ha e been deli e ed a a ime when ci ic au ho i ies (maybe e en Ma cian himsel ) had in e ened o supp ess some such spec acles, pe haps pan omimes (a gen e mo e closely linked wi h dancing han he mime, which Cho icius had ‘de ended’). On he impo an place o spec acles in he social li e o la e an ique Gaza see mos ecen ly Weiss (2014, 230–5). 19 Fo he inc easing emphasis on ange con ol in bo h G eek and Roman philosophical discou ses see Ha is (2004). Fo he Chu ch Fa he s’ condemna ion o ange as sin ul see So abji (2000, 391–3) and Kalim zis (2012, 143–50). G ego y o Nyssa, o example, s a es ha indigna ion and ange mus ‘be as wa ch-dogs o be oused only agains a acking sins’ (On Vi gini y 18.3). 20 See Wa s (2006, 25 and 42–6), who no es ha , e en hough ‘[b]y he end o he ou h cen u y, s uden iolence had become a majo p oblem in educa ional cen es h oughou he empi e’, he si ua ion in A hens was uniquely g a e, o cing eache s, e en hose who held publicly unded posi ions, o each in hei own homes (43). 21 S uden iolence and o he de ian beha iou was accep able (and e en honou able) in ce ain con ex s, and, as Wa s (2005, 237) pu s i , ‘s uden s a i ed a school expec ing o li e acco ding o a di e en se o alues’, which would in eg a e hem in he scholas ic g oup – seen as la gely independen om he es o socie y and go e ned by i s own se o ules. Libanius himsel admi s ha he was expec ing o ake pa in iolen ac i i ies and blow all his money away (O . 1.19). 22 In O . 1.16 and 20 Libanius ecoun s how he was kidnapped a he quayside, go cooped up in a cell abou as big as a ba el, was no allowed e en o ca ch a glimpse o he eache he had wan ed o s udy wi h (Epiphanius), and was o ced o en ol unde Diophan us, whom he clea ly wan ed no hing o do wi h. 23 See O . 16 ‘F om he ex empo e o a ion gi en when disco d a ose wi hin his school’, O . 65, add essed ‘To hose in ol ed <in> a con lic and absen om a lec u e’, O . 21 ‘To he newly en olled Se e us who had u ned his a en ion o a con lic ’, and O . 66 ‘An ex empo e speech o some s uden s who seemed o be ebellious’. O . 69, a ‘Discou se deli e ed a e his wound healed’ implies ha Hime ius was physically a acked by his en ious enemies (69.2: ‘en y’s igh agains eloquence’). These speeches a e ansla ed by Penella (2007) in a chap e i led ‘In and A ound Hime ius’ School’. 24 On Hime ius’ awa eness o he social and poli ical alue o his speech see Hadji o i (2014, 243–4). By con as , Libanius’ Declama ions 3 and 4 ( ea u ing Menelaus and Odysseus as speake s a guing o he e u n o Helen) sugges ha , on he one hand, speech has some po en ial o esol e con lic , bu on he o he , gi en he audience’s knowledge o he ul ima e ailu e o bo h speeches, his po en ial is se e ely limi ed; see Penella (2011). 25 On he au hen ici y and place o he Dialexeis wi hin he Cho ician co pus see Telesca (2011–2012, 89–93 and 97–100). On he in o ma ion hey p o ide ega ding he pe o mance o Cho icius’ declama ions see Lupi (2014). 26 The wo d used (φιλονεικότερος) has conno a ions o no only eage ness, bu also i al y and agg essi eness. Wo ds om he same oo a e used o he wo indi iduals qua elling in O . 7.20, o be discussed below (φιλονεικούντων ἀλλήλοις […] τὰ τῆς φιλονεικίας). 27 This ‘p elimina y alk’ in oduces Declama ion 1. 28 Dialexis 16 co obo a es his poin , as i men ions and answe s his s uden s’ pe sis en eques s ha he declaimed mo e o en. 19 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 29 The e idence o his Dialexis, he e o e, sugges s a public pe o mance o Declama ion 8. On he likely composi ion o he ‘c owd’ (ὄχλος) see Lupi (2014, 14–5). 30 The e e ence is o Iliad 3.214–5. Dialexis 23, deli e ed be o e he second hal o Declama ion 10 (‘Pa oclus’), also add esses a membe o he audience who had c i icised Cho icius o he leng h o his speech. 31 See Pl. Symp. 194b6–8. 32 O . 13.4: ‘I wish ha disco d would disappea om among he gods and om among men, and I blame he poe [Home ] ha he neglec ed his, and ha he desc ibed in he p elude o his poem [ he Iliad] he w a h o Achilles, al hough I see ha some imes i [w a h] can become he mo i a ion o good hings’. C . G eco (2014, 243 n. 22). Fo Ch is ian a i udes owa ds ange see abo e, n. 19. 33 I hank Jan S enge o eminding me o his passage. 34 O . 7.20: ‘a uly simple woman and ull o meekness’ (ἁπλῆν ὄντως γυναῖκα καὶ πρᾳότητος γέµουσαν). Ea lie in he speech, in pa ag aph 4, Cho icius says ha Ma ia embodied he ideal o womanhood as p esen ed by Sophocles, al hough, o cou se, she had no ead Sophocles. 35 See Li sas (1981, 12), based on an admi edly ague e e ence in he Fune al O a ion o P ocopius 50. 36 Fo Cho icius’ po ayal o Ma cian as a man well e sed in classical li e a u e see G eco (2011, 100–3). 37 ‘Thei hands ou s e ching hei ongues’ is mos p obably a e e ence o plunde ing (‘ aking be o e hey ask’), bu could concei ably be in e p e ed in a mo e gene al way, as aking ac ion be o e any discussion o consul a ion. 38 O 3.8: ‘Ye , i seems o be na u al ha gen leness and spi i con adic each o he , so ha e en Soc a es is, I hink, clea ly puzzled as o whe e he migh ind a cha ac e which is a he same ime mild and magnanimous, because i is na u ally di icul o he one o coincide wi h he o he . Bu in you case, bo h o hem dissol e hei qua el and a e econciled’. The ‘you’ he e is plu al, and e e s o bo h men. 39 O 3.13, on which see Wes be g’s a icle in his olume. 40 O . 4.19. Wes be g (2010, 71–6) analyses hese wo speeches oge he unde he elling i le ‘Gi e peace a chance: Cho icius’ ede ini ions o wa and cou age’. 41 Russell (1983, 22) calls he imagina y ci y which p o ides he backg ound o many G eek declama ions ‘Sophis opolis’, and poin s ou ha his ci y bea s some esemblance o classical A hens: i ‘is a democ acy, whe e he he o – bo h poli ical and expe in o a o y – is some hing o a he o’; his obse a ion is especially ele an he e. The law on he wa he o’s p ize is no his o ical, bu appea s in Cho icius’ Declama ions 5, 11, and 12, and wi h a a ia ion ( e e ing o a y annicide ins ead o a wa he o) in Declama ion 7. On his heme in Cho icius and in o he au ho s, bo h G eek and Roman, see Manzione (2014, 182–95). 42 On he au hen ici y o he P o heo iae see Penella (2009, 16 n. 71), wi h whom I ag ee ha he pe sonal na u e o he ema ks would make any possible auds (which I do no conside likely) e y disappoin ing. 43 C . Dialexis 9.3–4, whe e he god o wa himsel , A es, is idiculed by Cho icius as una ac i e, a ogan , and always owning; e en i he ied o smile a his belo ed, Aph odi e, his smile would e i y a he han deligh he . 44 See P o heo ia 5. 45 C . he equally lo id speech which he speake a ibu es o he enemies’ women: ‘They came home because o wha an enemy agen ad ised; hey came home in numbe s, ha ing led om one man; hey came home ully a med, unning away om an o a o !’ (65). 46 Manzione (2014, 196) p oclaims Cho icius a paci is , ollowing Schoule (2005, 132–3), bu adding a Ch is ian angle, a ibu ing Cho icius’ an i-wa men ali y o his ‘adesione allo spi i o e al messaggio c is iano’. 47 Fo he connec ions be ween Summus and he Gazan School see G eco (2014, 243 n. 22), wi h u he e e ences. 48 See Li sas (1981, 22). 49 Cho icius says ha many ci ies ied o P ocopius, his he o ical skills a ousing ‘passiona e compe i ion among he g ea es ci ies ha desi e li e a y ac i i ies’; see he Fune al O a ion o P ocopius 12. 50 See he Fune al O a ion o P ocopius 22, wi h Wes be g (2010, 110) and G eco’s (2010) commen a y ad loc. ‘Many did no pe cei e he anguish o being o phans; o many women widowhood seemed a ligh hing because he alle ia ed hei su e ing. He was ne e de ea ed in he igh agains some ile passion, indeed, he con inced many o hose who we e a ached o unna u al desi es o epen ’. Wes be g (2010, 111 and 133–4) also poin s ou he simila i ies be ween he unc ions o he o a o and he mime, a opic oo ich o be ea ed he e, al hough i is ele an o his discussion ha Cho icius en isions he mime as p o iding elie om he s ess and disco d p esen in e e yday li e as well as in o he spec acles. 51 Acco ding o he Fune al O a ion o P ocopius 21, P ocopius was a ‘p ies in e e y hing bu he σχῆµα (schêma)’ – a wo d which can e e o he p ies ’s cha ac e is ic d ess o o being o dained; see G eco’s (2010) commen a y ad loc. 52!I am g a e ul o Jan S enge o in i ing me o pa icipa e in his exci ing p ojec and o Da id Wes be g o sending me his PhD hesis on he Gazan o a o s.