Aspects of Orality

and Greek Literature

in the Roman Empire
 Pierides
Studies in Greek and Latin Literature
Series Editors:
Philip Hardie, Stratis Kyriakidis,
Antonis K. Petrides

Volume I
Stratis Kyriakidis
Catalogues of Proper Names in Latin Epic Poetry:
Lucretius – Virgil – Ovid

Volume II
Antonis K. Petrides and Sophia Papaioannou (eds)
New Perspectives on Postclassical Comedy

Volume III
Myrto Garani and David Konstan (eds)
The Philosophizing Muse:
The Influence of Greek Philosophy on Roman Poetry

Volume IV
Sophia Papaioannou (ed.)
Terence and Interpretation

Volume V
Stephen Harrison (ed.)
Characterisation in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses
Nine Studies

Volume VI
Stratis Kyriakidis (ed.)
Libera Fama: An Endless Journey

Volume VII
Vayos Liapis, Maria Pavlou, Antonis K. Petrides (eds)
Debating with the Eumenides:
Aspects of the Reception of Greek Tragedy in Modern Greece
 Pierides
Studies in Greek and Latin
Literature

Volume VIII

Aspects of Orality
and Greek Literature
in the Roman Empire
Edited by

Consuelo Ruiz-Montero
Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire

Series: Pierides

Edited by Consuelo Ruiz-Montero

This book first published 2019

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2019 by Consuelo Ruiz-Montero and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission
of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-5275-3811-7

ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-3811-5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Illustrations ............................................................................................... vii

Contributors ............................................................................................. viii

Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xii

Preface ...................................................................................................... xv

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Consuelo Ruiz-Montero

Chapter One .............................................................................................. 32

The Oral Transmission of Memory in the Greek Cities of the Imperial
Period
Angelos Chaniotis

Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 49

Poetic and Prose Oral Performance in the Greek World of the Roman
Empire
Ewen Bowie

Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 81

Writing, Orality and Paideia in Plutarch’s The Banquet of the Seven Sages
José-Antonio Fernández Delgado

Chapter Four ........................................................................................... 100

Plutarch and the Novel: Register and Embedded Narratives
in the De genio Socratis and in Achilles Tatius
Harold Tarrant

Chapter Five ........................................................................................... 124

Oral Tales and Greek Fictional Narrative in Roman Imperial Prose
Consuelo Ruiz-Montero
vi Table of Contents

Chapter Six ............................................................................................. 152

Embedded Orality in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses and Florida
Loreto Núñez

Chapter Seven......................................................................................... 185

The Spoken Word, or the Prestige of Orality in Lucian
Francesca Mestre

Chapter Eight .......................................................................................... 204

‘Comic Books’ in Greco-Roman Antiquity
Antonio Stramaglia

Chapter Nine........................................................................................... 219

Jokes between Orality and Writing: The Case of the Philogelos
Mario Andreassi

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................ 240

Oral and Material Aspects of Sanctuaries in Roman Greece:
Delphi, Plutarch and Pausanias
Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis

Chapter Eleven ....................................................................................... 263

Egyptian Literature and Orality in the Roman Period
Jacqueline E. Jay

Chapter Twelve ...................................................................................... 281

The Island that was a Fish: An Ancient Folktale in the Alexander Romance
and in Other Texts of Late Antiquity
Ioannis M. Konstantakos

Bibliography ........................................................................................... 302

Index Locorum ....................................................................................... 350

General Index ......................................................................................... 367

Index of Greek Words ............................................................................ 387

 ILLUSTRATIONS

1. P.Oxy. XXII 2331 ............................................................................ 216

2a. P.Köln IV 179: Parodic contrast between Hercules and a gryllos ... 217
2b. P.Köln IV 179 (detail, digitally reworked): Hercules struggling with
the Cretan bull ................................................................................. 218
3. Photograph of a view of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. Author’s
photograph ....................................................................................... 243
4. Plan of the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, end of the 2nd century A.D.
EfA/ D. Laroche .............................................................................. 244
223 Treasury of the Athenians
422 Temple of Apollo
605 Cnidian Lesche; see J.-Fr. Bommelaer, Guide de Delphes, Le site,
(1991) pl. V for full key to numbered monuments.
5. Photograph of the remains of the Treasury of the Athenians. Author’s
photograph ....................................................................................... 251
6. Photograph of the remains of the temple of Apollo. Author’s
photograph ....................................................................................... 254
7. Reconstruction drawing of the East elevation of the temple of Apollo.
EfA/ E. Hansen ................................................................................ 255
8. Reconstruction drawing of the West elevation of the temple of Apollo.
EfA/ E. Hansen ................................................................................ 255
 CONTRIBUTORS

Mario Andreassi (1969) graduate in Greek and Latin Grammar (1993) and
Doctor of Philosophy in Greek and Latin Philology (1998), is currently
Associate Professor of Greek Language and Literature at the “Dipartimento
di Studi Umanistici”, University “Aldo Moro” (Bari), where he teaches
courses on Greek literature (“Cultura Letteraria della Grecia Antica”) and
grammar (“Grammatica Greca”). His published research ranges across
many fields of Greek literature: humorous literature (Philogelos), epigram
(Meleager), popular mime (Moicheutria and Charition), fictitious
biography (Vita Aesopi), epistolography (Alciphron), Imperial rhetoric
(Himerius).

Ewen Bowie, now an Emeritus Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,

was Praelector in Classics there from 1965 to 2007, and successively
University Lecturer, Reader, and Professor of Classical Languages and
Literature in Oxford University. He has published on early Greek elegiac,
iambic and lyric poetry, Aristophanes, Hellenistic poetry, and many aspects
of Imperial Greek literature and culture. He recently completed a
commentary on Longus, Daphnis and Chloe (CUP) and edited a collection
entitled Herodotus. Narrator, scientist, historian (de Gruyter 2018). He has
co-edited collections of papers on Philostratus (CUP 2009) and Archaic and
Classical Choral Song (de Gruyter 2011).

Angelos Chaniotis is Professor of Ancient History and Classics at the

Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. His current research on the social
and cultural history of the Hellenistic World and the Roman East focuses on
memory, emotion, and identity. He is editor of the Supplementum
Epigraphicum Graecum and of the inscriptions of Aphrodisias. His books
include War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History (2005)
and Age of Conquests: The Greek World from Alexander to Hadrian (2018).

José Antonio Fernández Delgado has been Professor of Greek Philology

at the University of Salamanca (1991-2017) and at the University of
Extremadura (1987-1991). He has made research at Birkbeck College
(London), Christ Church College (Oxford), Freie Universität Berlin,
Harvard University, Fondation Hardt, and Humboldt Universität Berlin,
with grants from the British Academy, Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire ix

and the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science; he has directed many
projects of research and has participated in international conferences in
many European universities; he has published ten books and more than one
hundred fifty papers in prestigious international journals and volumes.

Jacqueline E. Jay (Ph.D. 2008, University of Chicago) is Associate

Professor of History at Eastern Kentucky University. She is the author of
Orality and Literacy in the Demotic Tales (Brill, 2016). In addition to her
work on ancient Egyptian literature, her current research projects focus on
the publication of Demotic ostraca and graffiti.

Ioannis M. Konstantakos studied classical philology at the universities of

Athens and Cambridge and is now Professor of Ancient Greek Literature at
the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. His scholarly interests
include ancient comedy, ancient narrative, fiction, folklore, and the relations
between Greek and Near-Eastern literatures and cultures. He has published
four books and numerous articles on these topics. He has also given many
lectures, conference papers and seminars in Greek and European higher
institutions. He has received scholarships from the Greek State Scholarships
Foundation and the “Alexander S. Onassis” Public Benefit Foundation. In
2009 he was awarded the prize of the Academy of Athens for the best
classical monograph published within the previous five years. In 2012 he
was a finalist for the Greek state prize for critical essay.

Francesca Mestre is Professor of Greek Philology at the University of

Barcelona. In 1991 she published her PhD thesis (defended in 1985) on
essay as a literary genre in Greek literature of the Imperial period (L’assaig
a la literatura grega d'època imperial, Barcelona 1991). Her main field of
research is the literature and culture of the hellenophone part of the Roman
Empire. She works on authors like Dio Chrysostom and Philostratus (she
has also published translations of these in Catalan and Spanish), and Lucian,
the editing and translating of whose complete works she has been working
on since 2000. She has published several articles and chapters of collective
books, and coordinates the work of the “Graecia Capta” research group at
the University of Barcelona. She published (as co-editor with P. Gómez),
Lucian of Samosata. Greek Writer and Roman Citizen (2010), and Three
Centuries of Greek Culture under the Roman Empire (2014).

Loreto Núñez studied Classical Philology, Hispanic and comparative

literature and has a PhD in comparative literature. She was visiting
researcher at Kyknos, Research Centre for Ancient Narrative Literature at
the University of Wales-Swansea, the Swiss Institute in Rome and the
x Contributors

Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Currently, she is deputy assistant

professor in comparative literature at the University of Lausanne. She has
published mainly on the ancient novel and the Second Sophistic; in 2013,
she published Voix inouïes. Étude comparative de l’enchâssement dans
Leucippé et Clitophon d’Achille Tatius et les Métamorphoses d’Apulée,
Saarbrücken, 2 vols. She also worked on the reception of the ancient novel
in 16th and 17th century Spanish and French literature, the (re)writing of
Greco-Roman myths, fairy tales, and translating for children.

Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis researches on the cultural history of space and

objects in ancient Greece; her work evokes intimate cultural histories, often
of marginalised groups. She also writes about Classical reception of
material culture in Europe c.1760-1830. She is the author of Truly beyond
Wonders: Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios (OUP, 2010), and ten
chapters and articles. She is currently co-editing two volumes on the
reception of Greek vases; she is also working on two longer term projects,
on Greek votives, and on the experience of the marvellous. She studied
Classics at Oxford (MA 1991) and History of Art at The Courtauld Institute
of Art (MA 1995 and PhD 2001). She is currently Lecturer in Classics at
the University of St Andrews; previously she has held a Leverhulme Special
Research Fellowship, and has worked at Corpus Christi College, Oxford
and King’s College London.

Consuelo Ruiz-Montero studied Classical Philology at the Universidad

Autónoma de Barcelona, and holds a PhD from the Universidad de
Salamanca (1979). She is currently Professor of Greek Philology at the
Universidad de Murcia. Her research interests include Greek rhetoric
(mainly Greek theories on style), koine Greek, and mainly the Greek novel,
on which she has published two books (La estructura de la novela griega.
Análisis funcional, Salamanca 1988; La novela griega, Madrid 2006), and
many chapters and articles on the different aspects of the genre. Currently
she is especially focused on the study of the papyri of the Greek novel.

Antonio Stramaglia (1967) is Professor of Latin at the University of Bari.

He has worked on Greek and Latin fiction (Apuleius, papyrus fragments…);
the supernatural in classical literature; ancient paradoxography; “comics” and
other forms of interaction between text and image in Greece and Rome;
school in antiquity, with special emphasis on declamation; Roman satire
(Juvenal); Galen; Terence. Among his books: Res inauditae, incredulae.
Storie di fantasmi nel mondo greco-latino (Bari 1999); Giovenale, Satire 1,
7, 12, 16. Storia di un poeta (Bologna 2008, corr. repr. 2017); Phlegon
Trallianus. Opuscula De rebus mirabilibus et De longaevis (Berlin – New
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire xi

York 2011, Bibliotheca Teubneriana); commentaries to five of [Quintilian]’s

Major Declamations (Cassino 1999-2017). He is currently preparing a new
critical edition of the Major Declamations for the Loeb Classical Library;
and of Apuleius’s Operum deperditorum reliquiae for the Oxford Classical
Texts.

Harold Tarrant studied at Cambridge and Durham UK, and taught

Classics for thirty-eight years in Australian universities. After retiring to
live in the UK from 2012 he remains Professor Emeritus at the University
of Newcastle Australia. Recent publications include Proclus: Commentary
on Plato’s Timaeus, vols 6, Cambridge 2017; François Renaud and Harold
Tarrant, The Platonic Alcibiades I: the Dialogue and its Ancient Reception,
Cambridge 2015; and (edited with D. A. Layne, D. Baltzly, and F. Renaud)
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity, Leiden 2018.
 ABBREVIATIONS

BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Athens 1877-

BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den königlichen Museen zu Berlin,
Griechische Urkunden, Berlin 1895-1976.
CGL G. Goetz (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, 7 vols, Leipzig
1888-1923.
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4 vols, Berlin 1828-1877.
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin 1863-.
Corinth B. D. Meritt, Corinth, VIII.1, Greek Inscriptions, 1896-1926,
Cambridge Mass. 1931.
Cos D. Bosnakis and K. Hallof (eds), IG XII 4.2. Inscriptiones Coi
Insulae, Berlin – Νew York 2012.
Epet. Het. Ster. Mel. Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Στερεοελλαδικών Μελετών,
Athens 1968-
FD Bourguet et alii, Fouilles de Delphes, III, 1-6, Paris 1929-1985.
FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 15 vols,
Berlin 1923-1958.
GVI W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschriften, Berlin 1955.
I.Aphr. C. Roueché, J. Reynolds and G. Bodard, Inscriptions of
Aphrodisias, London 2007.
(http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/iaph /2007/html).
I.Beroea L. Gounaropoulou and M. B. Hatzopoulos, Ἐπιγραφὲς Κάτω
Μακεδονίας (μεταξὺ τοῦ Βερμίου Ὄρους καὶ τοῦ Ἀξιοῦ Ποταμοῦ).
Τεῦχος Αʹ. Ἐπιγραφὲς Βεροίας, Athens 1998.
IC M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae I-IV, Rome 1935-1950.
ID F. Durrbach, P. Roussel, P. Launey and J. Coupry, Les
inscriptions de Délos, 6 vols, Paris 1926-1972.
I.Didyma A. Rehm and R. Harder, Didyma, II, Die Inschriften, Berlin
1958.
I.Ephesos H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et alii, Die Inschriften von Ephesos
I-VII. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17, Bonn
1979-1981.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin 1873-.
IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas pertinentes, Paris 1911-
1927.
IGUR Luigi Moretti, Inscriptiones Graecae Vrbis Romae, Rome 1968-
1990.
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire xiii

I.Herakleia L. Jonnes, The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica, with a

Prosopographia Heracleotica by W. Ameling (IGSK Band 47),
Bonn 1994.
IK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Bonn 1972-.
ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols, Berlin 1892-
1916.
I.Napoli E. Miranda, Iscrizioni greche d’Italia: Napoli, 2 vols, Rome 1990
and 1995.
I.Oropos B. C. Petrakos, Oἱ ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ Ὠρωποῦ, Athens 1997.
IOSPE I2 V. Latyshev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti
Euxini Graecae. vol. I. 2nd ed.: Inscriptiones Tyrae Olbiae
Chersonesi Tauricae Aliorum Locorum a Danubio usque ad
regnum Bosporanum, St. Petersburg 1916.
I.Pergamon M. Fraenkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon, I-II, Berlin
1890-1895.
I.Priene F. Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene, Berlin 1906.
I.Side J. Nollé, Side im Altertum. Geschichte und Zeugnisse I:
Geographie, Geschichte, Testimonia, griechische und lateinische
Inschriften. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 43,
Bonn 1993.
I.Smyrna G. Petzl, Die Inschriften von Smyrna I-II. Inschriften
griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 23-24, 3 vols, Bonn
1982-1990.
I.Thespiae P. Roesch, Les inscriptions de Thespies, édition électronique
mise en forme par G. Argoud, A. Schachter, et G. Vottéro, Lyon
2007 [20092]
Laographia Λαογραφία: Δελτίον τñς Ἑλληνικñς Λαογραφικñς Ἑταιρείας,
Ἀθῆναι 1909-
LDAB Leuven Database of Ancient Books
(http://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/).
LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zurich –
Munich (later: Düsseldorf) 1981-1999.
LS C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary; founded on
Andrews’ Edition of Freund´s Latin Dictionary; revised,
enlarged, and in great part rewritten, Oxford 1879.
LSJ9 H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon,
Oxford 1940, with revised supplement ed. by P. G. W. Glare,
Oxford 1996.
MAMA VIII W. M. Calder and J. M. R. Cormack, Monumenta Asiae
Minoris Antiqua VIII. Monuments from Lycaonia, the Pisido-
Phrygian Borderland, Aphrodisias, Manchester 1962.
xiv Abbreviations

O. Bodl. II J. G. Tait and C. Préaux, Greek Ostraka in the Bodleian.

Library at Oxford and other various collections, II, London 1955.
OLD P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1968-1982.
P. Berol.W. Schubart, Papyri Graecae Berolinenses, Bonn 1911.
PG J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Paris 1857-1963.
P.Köln Kölner Papyri, 1976-.
P.Lips. L. Mitteis, Griechische Urkunden der Papyrussammlung zu
Leipzig, Leipzig 1906 (Milano 1970).
P.Lit. London H. J. M. Milne, Catalogue of the Literary Papyri in the
British Museum, London 1927 (Milano 1977).
P.Oxy. B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, et alii, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri,
London 1898-
PSI G. Vitelli, M. Norsa et alii, Papyri greci e latini (Pubblicazioni
della Società Italiana per la ricerca dei papyri greci e latini in
Egitto), Firenze 1912-
RE A. Pauly, G. Wissowa and W. Kroll, Real Encyclopädie d.
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart 1893-1980
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden 1923-
TAM Tituli Asiae Minoris, Wien 1901-
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig 1900-.
ViP U. Horak, Verzeichnis illuminierter edierter Papyri, Pergamente,
Papiere und Ostraka (ViP), in ead., Illuminierte Papyri,
Pergamente und Papiere, I, Wien 1992, 227-261.
 PREFACE

Orality in the Roman Empire – an age of sophisticated literature and

widespread literacy – is a topic that deserves greater attention and further
research. The purpose of this book is to expand our knowledge of how
Greek texts circulated in the Roman Empire. We are interested in the study
of three main aspects of orality: orality of origin (the production of the text),
orality of representation (the enunciation of the text), and orality of
dissemination (the spread of the text). We will examine orality as the
‘product’ of literary creation, which is different from the orality that led to
the written texts of the archaic period. The papers presented here analyse
both Greek literary works and contemporary inscriptions, the ways they
were disseminated and their contact with material culture, together with
Egyptian and Latin literary works. For this reason, the interdisciplinary
character of the volume may prove of interest to a wider audience than that
of ancient Greek scholarship.
The starting point for this book was an international conference held
at the Roman theatre in Cartagena (Murcia) on the 29-31 May 2014 on the
topic of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire. Funding for the
conference was provided by the University of Murcia and the Región de
Murcia’s “Fundación Séneca”, and the “Dirección General de Investigación
Científica y Técnica del Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad”.
I am grateful for the participation of all those who attended, especially of
those scholars who came and delivered papers. Most of these papers are
published here. José Antonio Artés Hernández and José Antonio Molina
Gómez helped me in organising the conference. I should also like to express
my gratitude to the Director of the Cartagena Theatre, Elena Ruiz Valderas,
for her generosity in allowing us to use this magnificent venue. I would also
like to extend our thanks to my colleague Lawrence Kim from Trinity
University at Texas for his collaboration in the preparation of this volume.
Fundamental to my research have been the stays at the Institut für
Klassische Philologie of the University of Munich, the Kommission für Alte
Geschichte und Epigraphik of the Deutsches Archäelogisches Institut
(Munich), and as a Visiting Professor at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
My deep gratitude to Professors Ernst Vogt (†), Johannes Nollé, and Ewen
Bowie for making these stays possible and for their constant support. I
would also like to mention here my friends Bettina, Bonnie and Lee, who
xvi Preface

made my stay at Oxford in the latter stages of preparing this volume such
an enjoyable one.
The anonymous reader has offered us invaluable suggestions, and
encouragement, for which we are so grateful.
Last but not least, my most sincere thanks to the editors of the Pierides
series, Professors P. Hardie, S. Kyriakidis and A. Petrides, for their continuous
support and academic assistance.
I do not wish to conclude without expressing my most heartfelt thanks
to Eleni Peraki-Kyriakidou for her generous and efficacious help.
 INTRODUCTION

CONSUELO RUIZ-MONTERO

1. Orality: The Concept and its Beginnings in Greece

Orality was the backbone of ancient Greek culture throughout its various
periods 1 complemented and interpenetrated by the ‘visual’. 2 Both are
evident in what has been called a ‘performative culture’, which admits
various forms, both public and private. 3 In the Archaic age pan-Hellenism
was expressed through religious festivals that included songs with dances

1 Orality is still relevant today and is a characteristic trait of Mediterranean culture.

To give an example, I would like to refer to ‘trovos’, that is, improvised verses
typical for Murcia, see Flores Arroyuelo (1977). Evans [(1991) 99, 121] mentions
some African comparanda, albeit not without reservations (p. 267). Thomas [(1992)
114, n. 36] reported that long messages are still transmitted in verse in ‘Somali
nomads’. Hunter and Rutherford [(2009) 14-16] give some non-Greek parallels on
travelling singers and poets. On orality and literacy in the ancient world the
proceedings of a biennial series of international conferences have been published,
starting with the volume edited by Worthington (1996). Unfortunately, I was unable
to see the last volume, N. W. Slater (ed.) (2017) Voice and Voices in Antiquity,
Leiden. It is not my intention here to discuss this controversial topic, nor the relations
between orality and writing, questions I shall deal with in passing.
2 Cf. schol. vet. in Hes. Theog.: ὁρῶντες γὰρ καὶ θαυμάζοντες προφερόμεθα λόγους

(266a2) T.
3 See the introduction by Beard (1991), Thomas [(1992) 120] for types of songs,

public festivals and private symposia. Evans [(1991) 130] refers to the presence of
logioi in Ionian or Dorian ‘panegyreis’ before they appear in ‘pan-Hellenic
festivals’. ‘Travelling poets’ were a very significant group, as were the ‘travelling
historians’, the ‘intellectuals’ and the ‘performers’: see the introduction in Hunter
and Rutherford [(eds) (2009)], where the papers included are focused mainly on the
Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods, yet, according to the editors, the
“travelling poets, and honorific decrees for them, continue to be well attested in the
Roman Empire” (p. 8). On p. 22 they note the importance of this phenomenon for
the Greek world, mostly overlooked, and add that “it would have looked very
different to those who were actually there”. Petrides [(2014) 106-107] insists on the
‘theatrical mentality’ of Hellenistic life, which appears from 4th century B.C.
onwards.
2 Introduction

and music, epideictic speeches, processions and rituals, all of which

constituted ‘performances’ to be seen and heard: in other words, one
attended a ‘spectacle’, a theatron, a habit which was kept alive even, and
especially, during the Empire. Both orality and visuality functioned
together, as can be detected in literature: Archaic epic, which is the major
literary representation of oral culture, made its narration visual with vivid
descriptions, 4 and the lyric poets compared them with the plastic arts. This
becomes a topos that Horace brilliantly describes as ut pictura poesis (Ars
361). Along with this, the importance of visualisation in historiographical
descriptions is also well-known, as is the fact that it continued later. 5
‘Orality’ is a heterogeneous and polysemic concept, whether it is
employed to characterise a certain society or to classify certain uses of
spoken or written language as media. ‘Orality’ is usually understood or
defined in regard to various procedures for writing a text, which leads to a
differentiation of styles and genres. 6 Obviously, however, the term ‘oral’
presupposes its opposite, and in this sense, as Bakker observes, 7 this term
“cannot be separated from our own literate perspective”.
The Homeric epic is traditionally cited as the prime example of
‘orality’ in all its aspects, namely that of 1) origin, 2) medium, and 3)
destination. The first category concerns the production of the text and
affects both the author and what we call the ‘matter’, i.e., the literary
content. The second category deals with both the performance of the text
(and so is related to its transmission, as well) and the way in which the text
is represented or enunciated, determining whether we call it ‘real’ or
‘fictitious’ orality. Finally, the third category is solely concerned with the
transmission and /or reception of the text. The orality of the Homeric epic
has been labelled as total or ‘primary’ orality, because it comprehends all
three aspects, i.e. oral production, transmission, and reception or

4 The description of Achilles’ shield at Il. 18.478-608 has served as a model for later
rhetoricians in terms of enargeia and evidentia. For Pindar and Simonides see Beard
(1991); Thomas (1992) 114-115.
5 On the enargeia of Ctesias see Demetr. De eloc. 212-216. Polybius (2.56.6-12)

criticises the excesses in Phylarchus’ historical account, striking in this way the
difference between historical and tragical narration. On the relationship between
history and oral performance, see below, section 2.
6 See Gnilka (1990); Blänsdorf (1996); Fruyt (1996) who prefer the terms ‘oralité’/

‘scripturalité’ or even better ‘littérarité’, the latter including the meaning of

‘literacy’. On orality and its types see also Bakker (1999) 29-30. He distinguishes a
‘medial’ use of the term ‘oral’ as opposed to ‘written’ discourse, from a
‘conceptional’ use of ‘oral’ as opposed to ‘literate’ discourse.
7 Bakker (1999) 33.
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire 3

destination. 8 Yet these categories can be combined, and some of them are
indeed intertwined in Greek literature. Homer stands at the peak of ‘orality’,
although the role that writing played in the composition of such extensive
and complex works as the Iliad and the Odyssey is debatable. The Greco-
Roman literature of the Empire would thus constitute the opposite case, the
opposite pole of orality. In this instance, orality entails mainly the
presentation /enunciation and the reception of the text. But such an
opposition is only apparent, and it would be misleading to see the ‘oral’ and
the ‘literate’ aspect of Greek literature as antagonistic, rather than regarding
them as complementary, with different relationships according to ages and
genres. 9
This is why some scholars suggest the term ‘secondary’ orality, and
ignore the possible oral composition of a work, prioritising instead factors
like enunciation, performance and reception or destination. Such scholars
prefer the terms ‘aurality’ and ‘aural’, given that Greek texts were meant to
be read or performed aloud as verbal art for the ears, either in public or in
private. 10 For this purpose, euphony and certain stylistic devices and
repetitions were used, in addition to rhetorical devices such as ekphrasis and
digression. 11 From this point of view the performance of poetry, drama, and
oratory was both oral and aural. Moreover, this hypothesis has also been
suggested in regard to Plato’s dialogues, which imitate storytelling and
heroic tales in an intellectual context of banquets and show the formal marks
of oral composition described above, these being presented as oral
‘enunciations’. 12

8 Rossi (1993).
9 See Bakker (1999) 30-31: they “can be seen as the two poles or extremes of a
continuum, with numerous gradations in between … In practice, most discourses
will display both oral and literate features in varying ratios ...”; p. 36: “In the Greek
archaic period writing must have been so different from our notion of writing, so
‘oral’ in fact, that the simple dichotomy between ‘orality’ and literacy breaks down”.
He proposes to label Homer’s poetry as ‘special speech’, to replace Parry and Lord’s
‘oral poetry’.
10 J. Russo (1978); Rossi (1993); see further above n. 6 and the discussion by Parker

(2009) 186-229: Talking about Latin 145

poetry he argues that ‘aural’ does not make poetry ‘oral’.
11 Trenkner (1960) 74-78; Wheeler (1999) 115; Núñez (2006); Mestre (this volume).

For ‘ring compositions’ in other ‘non-literate’ cultures see Evans (1991) 104.
12 On Plato see Tarrant (1996). On Plato’s reception in the Imperial age see Trapp

(1990); Tarrant (1999); on Apuleius, De Jong (2001); Hunter (2006), and Graverini
(2010): below, n. 91.
4 Introduction

In the Imperial age, the ‘Second Sophistic’ movement was “another

typically Greek manifestation of orality” 13 that consciously continued to use
both the oratorical and dramatic practices of the past. Poetry remained
linked to oral performance in the Hellenistic and later periods, 14 yet the oral
representation was also preferred in later fictitious presentations of prose
works such as Greek novels and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, 15 and was one
of the most used methods in Imperial literature, whose taste for narrative
should be emphasised and is a characteristic shared with epitaphs. 16 This
kind of literary practice at the diegetic level created an extraordinary
complexity. Indeed, the Incredible things beyond Thule by Antonius
Diogenes is a prime example of the interplay between oral and written
communication, although the device itself was not without antecedents. 17
Such cases are examples of mimetic orality which are consistent with
rhetorical theory and practice. In the following pages, we offer a diachronic
overview of oral performance and Greek prose literature.

2. Oral Performances in the Classical and Hellenistic Period

The practice of epideixis, ‘display’, seems to date back to the speech On
Concord delivered by Gorgias in Olympia, a declamation labelled as
‘reading’ (anagnosis) by Plutarch (Mor. 144B), like Lysias’ speech, also
delivered in Olympia (Vit. decem orat., Mor. 836D). As Del Corso has
observed, however, both authors belonged to an oral-aural society and gave
their speeches without using texts. 18 According to Diogenes Laertius (9.54),
among the books that Protagoras read publicly was that On Gods, as
sophists and philosophers used to do in the past, a practice which constituted
a complement to religious activity based on orality.
It is well-known that Gorgias attempted to make speeches in prose
similar to poetry, and to do so he used stylistic devices, such as formulas

13 Thomas (1992) 123; Hunter and Rutherford (2006) above, n. 1.

14 See Chaniotis (2009a). On the way in which Ovid’s Metamorphoses followed the
conventions and devices of oral communication in ancient epic see Wheeler (1999),
esp. pp. 48-60.
15 On Greek novels see Núñez (2006) and the studies edited by Rimell (2007). On

the possibility that Apuleius’ Metamorphoses was performed orally, see May (2007)
with further references, Keulen (2007b) and Núñez (this volume). On public
recitations of Ovid see Wheeler (1999) 36-37, and below, n. 65.
16 The phenomenon has also been observed in decrees starting from the 4th century

B.C.: Chaniotis (2010).

17 For Diogenes see Ruiz-Montero (forthcoming).
18 Del Corso [(2005) 63-94] is fundamental for our topic; esp. p. 69.
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire 5

and repetitions at all linguistic levels. 19 This conscious union of the formal
functions and methods of poetry and prose continued to be used in
subsequent periods and should be taken note of when studying the oral
performances of the Imperial period.
On the other hand, although from the 5th century B.C. there were
already archives in Athens, oral transmission continued alongside the
existence of written texts. 20 This was true both in public speaking and in
oral discourse concerning the narration of historical events. Herodotus
begins his work with a reference to his historías apódeixis, an expression
meaning “oral performance of his ‘research’ either recited from memory
(though not necessarily repeated word for word), or read from a written
text”. 21 This double practice can be also observed in the different types of
informants – of exceptional memory – and in the Egyptian sources quoted
by Herodotus (2.77, 100, 125). Furthermore, some common points have
been detected between Herodotus and Xenophon in terms of the way they
both blend authentic storytelling with an already ‘mimetic’ oral presentation
of the scene. 22 Traditions also existed of public readings of a speech by
Democritus of Abdera. 23 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Isoc. 2 and 13) admits
that the speeches of Isocrates, due to their style, are more suited to reading
than to the representation or declamation observed in Demosthenes (Dem.

19 Plato superbly imitates the style in Agathon’s speech in Symp.194e4-197e8.

20 See Thomas (1992); Woolf (2013) 13; Martínez and Senseney (2013) 407. On
Pisistratus’ library, alleged by some ancient sources to have been the first one in
Athens, see Woolf (2013) 10 (‘a myth’); Jacob (2013) 78-80; Handis (2013) 368.
Perilli [(2007) esp. 50-51] underlined the importance of archives in sanctuaries as
repositories of certain books on philosophy, technical sciences and medicine, and
the role of these sanctuaries for the transmission of knowledge and teaching. In the
same vein, focusing on written documents in Classical and later periods, De Martino
[(2013) 112, n. 6] is very useful for sources on paideia and readers (not only
women). I thank Antonio Stramaglia for calling my attention to this article.
21 Evans (1991) 94; see also pp. 98-111 on oral and written Herodotus’ sources;

Asheri, Lloyd and Corcella (2007) 8: “exposition of the enquiries”; 72-73:

“publication (oral?)” or “performance”. The Spanish lexicon Diccionario Griego
Español II, quotes IC 3.4.9.93 (Itanos, 2nd century B.C.): (ποιη)τῶν καὶ
ἱστοριογράφων ἀποδείξεις. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dem. 22.26) refers to the
hypokrisis of Demosthenes using the verb apodeiknumi. See Del Corso [(2005) 14]
for apodeixis as a synonym of epideixis: also below, n. 33. On Herodotus and oral
performance see also Zelnick-Abramovitz (2014) 176, quoting Lucian Herodotus or
Aëtion 1-3; 177, n. 6, referring to Dio Chrys. 37.7.
22 Beard (1991) 161. Gray (1989) thinks of private readings aloud of Xenophon’s

works and concludes that his Hellenica was meant for learned circles that were,
however, less demanding than Socratic ones; see also Kelly (1996).
23 See the information provided by Del Corso (2005) 68-70.
6 Introduction

22.6). Moreover, Isocrates himself quotes in his Philippos (5.25-26) that there
are speeches ‘which are spoken’ (legomenoi), and these are real, and then there
are other fictitious ‘which are read’ (anagignoskomenoi). Isocrates
distinguishes between different modes of reading. The Philippos constitutes
an early testimony of the spread of the practice of ‘recited reading’ in the
Greek world, which is so well documented in late Republican and Imperial
Rome. In Panath. 12.246 Isocrates also makes a distinction between
‘casual’ readers (τοῖς μὲν ῥᾳθύμως ἀναγιγνώσκουσιν) and ‘accurate’ readers
(τοῖς δ᾽ ἀκριβῶς διεξιοῦσιν), who are his target audience (136). In Antid.
15.136, he opposes public rhetors and speakers who excel at private
gatherings, idioi syllogoi. 24 Plutarch (Mor. 840D) refers to the fact that
Aeschines read his Against Ctesiphon publicly in Rhodes long after the trial
itself was held. Plutarch again called this a declamatory reading (anegno ...
epideiknumenos). 25
In philosophical tradition, the practice of reading is also accepted as a
mimesis of an oral context, and Xenophon (Memor. 1.6.14) and Plato refer
to private readings and discussions of both poetry and prose in small
groups. 26 Thus, oral teaching coexisted with teaching in writing. This
‘dynamic tension’ between orality and literacy referred to by Havelock
lasted throughout Antiquity. 27
The reading of dramatic works seems to have already existed in the 4th
century B.C. Aristotle (Rhet. 1413b12-14), when dealing with the types of
lexis (‘style’) mentions among the anagnostikoi Chaeremon and Licymnius
as poets suitable to be read. 28 In the same vein Demetrius (De elocut. 193),

24 Del Corso (2005) 86-87, 89; Beard (1991) 140; Gagarin (1996).
25 Del Corso [(2005) 65, n. 10] argues that this reading would be impossible without
the help of a book. Cicero (Brut. 191): Antimachus of Colophon read (legeret) his
Thebaid convocatis auditoribus, Plato among them; Diod. Sic. 15.6: Dionysius the
Elder of Syracuse read verses to his guests, among them Philoxenus: see Pennacini
(1989). On post-delivery publication of forensic oratory see Hubbard (2008):
“speeches as orators’ attempts … not of what they actually said ... but rather what
they would like to be remembered as saying” (Introd. 3). See Slater (2008) on
Augustus’ Res Gestae, a work “originally designed to induce repeated re-performance
of a first-person narrative…”
26 Puchner (2010) stressed Plato’s relationship with dramatical genres. On the

performance of Plato’s dialogues see below, nn. 90, 91.

27 Havelock cited by Cambron-Goulet (2012) 212-216.
28 βαστάζονται δὲ οἱ ἀναγνωστικοί, οἷον Χαιρήμων (ἀκριβὴς γὰρ ὥσπερ λογογράφος),

καὶ Λικύμνιος τῶν διθυραμβοποιῶν. Del Corso (2005) 108, n. 44. It has already been
observed that Aristotle (Po. 1450b18-19) also favoured this type of performance
where mythos is more significant than opsis: see Rossi (1993) 104; Charalabopoulos
(2012) 135, n. 57, and the interesting discussion by Petrides (2014) 102-110.
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire 7

in referring to the use of conjunctions states that because of the way

Menander uses them, his work “is staged”, whereas Philemon (361-262
B.C.) “is read”. 29 Accordingly, what Apuleius reports (Flor. 16.6-10) that
Philemon interrupted his recitatio at the theatre because of the rain, should
not necessarily be taken as an anachronism. 30
Inscriptions from Delos and Delphi dating from the third to the 1st
century B.C. attest to almost daily public akroaseis (‘recitations’) and
anagnoseis (‘readings’) and not always in the context of poetic agones. In
other inscriptions deixeis are used as synonyms for akroaseis and
anagnoseis, probably poetic in nature; akroaseis, however, are also attested
in Delphi in relation to prose writers in general, historians, philosophers,
rhetoricians and grammarians, and in Haliartus in relation to physicians. 31
Among other performances, Chaniotis cites itinerant historians
(ἱστοριογράφοι) of ancient or contemporary events attested in honorific
decrees, among which a πολεμoγράφος αὐδά, that is, “the written accounts
of war”, besides narrations of miracles, foundational legends, local myths
and stories about the sanctuary and the city. 32
There are also testimonies regarding proekdoseis at the Peripatetic
school and Epicurus’ public readings, epideixeis and the possible deixeis of
Theophrastus, who refers to two types of readings, the panegyreis, which
were read at solemn official celebrations, and those addressed to a restricted
synedrion, in which ‘corrections’ of a text, epanorthoseis, 33 were possible,
and whose roots, according to Diogenes Laertius (3.35-37), go back to the

29 Μένανδρον ὑποκρίνονται, λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις, Φιλήμονα δὲ ἀναγινώσκουσιν:

see Rh.1413b19-32 on the use of asyndeton. This opinion is accepted by Chiron, the
French editor of Demetrius (1993) 122, n. 258.
30 As Hunink (2001a) presupposes in his commentary ad loc. Apuleius says that

Philemon fabulas ... in scaenam dictavit (Flor. 16.6), and insists on his reading:
recitabat partem fabulae ... relicum tamen … deincipiti die perlecturum (Flor.
16.10-11). Both Philemon and Menander were praised by Quint. 10.1.71-72. May
[(2006) 59-63] argues that Apuleius is here a witness of contemporary discussions
on comedy, which seems more likely.
31 See Del Corso (2005) 75-76. Pennacini [(1989) 254] has a number of references

to sources on recitationes in Rome in the 3rd and 2nd century B.C. regarding Livius
Andronicus and Ennius (praelegebant).
32 See Chaniotis [(2009a) 259-262] with a very useful terminological study. For the

special meaning of some words in inscriptions see below Ruiz-Montero (ch. 5, n.78).
Zelnick-Abramovitz (2014) documents that reading historical works in public was a
continuous practice and that under Roman rule the number of decrees issued in
honour of the travelling historians declined, although it increased again in the times
of the Antonines, in the context of the Second Sophistic (p. 181).
33 Del Corso (2005) 76-83. Theophrastus is quoted by Diogenes Laertius 5.37.
8 Introduction

Socratic schools and to orators, such as Isocrates, a matter to which we have

already referred. Vitruvius describes intense activity at the Museum in
Alexandria at an annual festival in honour of the Muses. 34
On the other hand, the presence of public anagnostai is well
documented in inscriptions from Smyrna, Cos and Priene from the second
and first century B.C. Furthermore, we learn of the existence in other cities
of public clerks, of an apparently low social status, corresponding to that of
grammateus. 35 It is also worth remembering that Alexander was called
‘lover of reading’ (φιλαναγνώστης), and that he was accompanied by readers
and historians, who would read their own works to him. This laid down a
precedent for the literary-minded courts of Alexander’s successors, where
there were still philosophers and poets. Here we cannot go into depth in the
matter, but one can at least keep in mind the public readings or proekdoseis
of the Alexandrian poets. 36
Although reading aloud was the dominant form of reading in the
ancient world, silent reading is also attested from the 5th century B.C. 37 and
that it began to gain ground in the 3rd century B.C., to become the prevailing
mode of reading from the 2nd century A.D. This meant the triumph of the
‘culture of the book’, whose dissemination is further proven by the
frequency with which books appear in iconography, and which is one of the
strongest signs of the transformation in cultural practices from the Classical
age onwards, in both the public and private spheres. 38 Nevertheless, reading
in groups did not disappear, and, as W.A. Johnson observes concerning
Aulus Gellius’ circle of learned readers, this kind of reading is more
common. 39
Parker 40 stresses the importance of silent reading, which occurred even
in the presence of other people. Groups of readers and scholars did include
women, although they were in a minority. Women also figure in the

34 Del Corso (2005) 71, nn. 30, 31. On p. 72 he comments ID 1506 on literary
akroaseis by a young man in ekklesiasterion and in theatre: these are public readings
of eulogistic hymns he composed, labelled anagnóseis. Cf. above, n.21.
35 Del Corso (2005) 87-93. In Priene public and private grammateis are mentioned

along with an antigrapheus: p. 88, n. 97.

36
Plutarch Alex. 8.2; Mor. 328D. Athenaeus (Deipn. 537d) mentions that after the
performance of actors at a banquet, Alexander himself performed apomnemoneusas
an episode of Euripides’ Andromeda. More data in Del Corso (2005) 90-91.
37 Aristophanes (Ran. 52-54) is usually cited as the first testimony to silent reading,

but see the commentary by Dover (1993). On silent reading see W. A. Johnson
(2000).
38 Del Corso (2005) 99-113.
39 W.A. Johnson (2009) 323.
40 Parker (2009) 195-198. See also Ach. Tat. 1.6.6.
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire 9

iconography and in Hellenistic epitaphs; however, their presence in

literature and culture in general grew later. 41
The akroaseis were held in rooms called akroaterion, akousterion, odeion,
deikterion, or in the gymnasia, the bouleuterion or the ekklesiasterion. 42
‘Audible readings’ were also performed during the deipnon, the main meal,
and during the symposion. 43 As we shall see, it was a common and
characteristic practice among the elite in the Imperial period, and reading
was performed during or after these events.

3. The Imperial Age

The practice of public reading reached its peak in the Imperial era and was
one of the main characteristics of the literary culture of the period, that is,
the culture of the Second Sophistic. At Rome, where the culture was “very

41 See Del Corso [(2005) 110, n. 50] for an instance of a female teacher (such cases

are more frequently attested during the Empire). Diogenes Laertius (3.46) refers to
two female disciples of Plato, and Epictetus to the female audience interested in the
study of his Republic. Moreover, the fact that in the novels of Chariton and Achilles
Tatius the heroines frequently appear reading letters, a young girl reading a book,
apparently in silence, can be seen in Lucian (Im. 9.2). The culture of Charicleia is
also emphasised in Heliodorus’ Aethiopica (2.33.5). Isidora, Antonius Diogenes’
sister, to whom he dedicates his novel, is also a philomathes (Phot. Bibl. 166.111a24)
but the level of the cultural background and the narrative complexity of his work
prevent us from considering this datum as a proof of a mass of women reading
novels. The level of literacy in the Empire is a complex and much discussed topic,
but the figures provided by Harris [(1989) 259] on literate individuals in Rome, “in
the tens of thousands” (400.000 in the 2nd century, 10% educated readers, ca. 40.000
or more readers) do not seem to be very far from reality and are accepted by Dix and
Houston [(2006) 709], although the ‘transversal reading’ proposed by Cavallo
(1989), which is more optimistic, cannot be ruled out entirely. See also Thomas
(1992) 150-157. Valette-Cagnat [(1997) 17-19] accepts Harris’ figures too, but saves
us from simplistic conclusions; nor Zelnick-Abramovitz [(2014) 193, n. 54] is
optimistic.
42 Del Corso (2005) 66. See above, n. 33 for the deikterion in relation to

Theophrastus.
43 Del Corso (2005) 114-125. Particularly interesting among the data he cites are

certain symposium anthologies found in Elephantine and Tebtunis papyri, aimed at

an Egyptian middle or upper middle class audience, which include ‘paraliterary’
poetry and texts that are of a licentious nature; he links them to literary texts like
Theocr. 14 and AP 5.138 (pp. 117-121).
10 Introduction

bookish” (Salles, p. 96), 44 the practice of public reading was widespread.

The book was at the epicentre of the culture of this age, an age in which
literacy peaked, in whatever way we define this. Orality, however, and the
book were not opposed, since “oral performance is a sine qua non of self-
representation in this period”, based on the paideia (p. 98). Furthermore,
rhetorical performance was a fundamental aspect of social life. The ‘orality’
of the Second Sophistic was clearly based on ‘literacy’. “Literacy does not
in any way preclude oral performance, but grounds it ... Oratory’s oral
performance is fully informed by reading and writing” (p. 98). Literary
culture and orality were the two sides of the same coin during this period.
This phenomenon has been particularly studied in relation to Latin
literature, where declamatio and recitatio were common and essential
practices. 45 We will therefore include Roman data in our discussion.
However, from what we have seen so far and what we shall see, these
practices also characterised the Greek literary culture of the Empire.

3.1 Public Performances

The performative character of the Greek culture under the Empire was not
a new phenomenon, as we have seen, but its manifestations were much more
varied and extensive than before. 46 Inscriptions document several types of
contests, agones, sporting, musical, and literary, for poetry and for prose. 47
Many such contests are attested throughout the cities of the Empire, but the

44 Salles [(1992) 184] mentions “la bibliomanie effrénée des Romains”. Goldhill
(2009) underlines the interest in “anecdotal form” of the Second Sophistic, and
defines “anecdote” as “the muthos of literate culture ... where the literate and the
oral meet” (p. 111). See Johnson [(2010) 110-114] on the “centrality of literary
texts” for the educated Roman society of the 2nd century A.D.
45 The subject is very broad; for its origins, development and main traits see Quinn

(1982); Pennacini (1989); Fedeli (1989); Salles (1992); Valette-Cagnat (1997);

Parker (2009); W.A. Johnson (2009). See, however, the reservations of Parker
(2009), who reacts against the idea that Roman poets wrote primarily for
performance. Although his study is focused on poetry, he admits that prose does not
differ from it (p. 215, n. 121). Parker is right in considering that one cannot speak of
Imperial Roman society as an ‘oral society’ comparable to ancient Greece: see
above, n. 9. Nevertheless, as we wrote earlier, ‘oral society’ should be seen as
complementary to the ‘textual society’, both spheres being interdependent. Yet
Parker's data are highly valuable for our discussion here.
46 Already Plato (Tim. 21b) mentions traditional contests with prizes for recitation

(rhapsodias) for young people, referring to Solon’s poetry.

47 See Wörrle (1988); Roueché (1993); Manieri (2009); Petrovic (2009); Aneziri

(2009); Chaniotis (2009a) and this volume; Nervegna (2013) 80-118.

 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire 11

demand for local peculiarities is another trait of the age. 48 The presence of
θεάματα καὶ ἀκροάματα /ἀκούσματα, spectacles and hearing performances,
was typical in these contests which included among their prose oral
performances encomia and historical and mythical narratives. 49 There are
further references to poiemata, a poet of a New Tragedy, an actor in a New
Tragedy, a poet of a New Comedy, an actor in a New Comedy, comic
performers (comoedoi), tragic performers (tragoedoi), a satyr-playwright, a
rhapsode, a tragic chorus, and homeristai. 50 The mention in inscriptions of
dramatic performances of mimes and pantomimes, which enjoyed the
greatest success, is particularly interesting. 51 Pantomimes, biologoi, and
homeristai are attested in papyri and inscriptions, and these performers
acted at private symposia too. 52
Although the literary genres alluded to in inscriptions 53 cannot always
be clearly identified, these performances, given their public and official

48 See below, n. 121 for coins.

49 The expression θεάματα καὶ ἀκροάματα is already found at Xenophon (Symp. 2.1);
and Lucian (De salt. 68). For a Roman testimony see Cicero (Arch. 20). See the data
first provided by inscriptions of Aphrodisias in Roueché [(1993) 1-30; esp. pp. 15-
21] for ἀρχαιολόγοι, probably mime actors specialising in old stories. Rutherford
[(2013) 271] dealing with the pan-hellenic festival in honour of Artemis Leucopriene
(207 B.C.) at Magnesia on the Meander, mentions the possibility that theoroi carried
with them a small library and even that they performed the poetic texts for the benefit
of their audience.
50 See Chaniotis and Bowie in this volume.
51 Moreover Roueché (1993) 15-30; on pantomime see Hall and Wyles (2008) with

an anthology of sources in an appendix (pp. 379-419) and a comprehensive

bibliography. The following studies are also indispensable: Lada-Richards (2007);
Webb (2008); the collective volume edited by Easterling and Hall (2002). Lucian's
treatise De saltatione is the most important ancient document on the subject. For
collective studies on Imperial mime see Beacham (1991); Csapo and Slater (1994);
Webb (2013). See also below n. 81.
52 Nervegna (2013) 187, n. 190: festival in honour of Cronos; n. 193: on ethologoi

(“caricaturists”). On inscriptions about homeristai see Merkelbach and Stauber (vol.

2, 2001) 323-324. On p. 242 they list a total of ten actors and mimes.
53 An inscription from Cos published by Bosnakis (2004) and dated to the 1st century

A.D is interesting, since it refers to a ποιήτρια κω[μωδίας] ἀρχαίας who has won
several public games, and who may be a writer of comedy, although we cannot know
for certain (see Bowie in this volume, p. 75, n. 25). If she is indeed the author, she
would be the only known author of this dramatic genre. Bosnakis notes that in the
inscriptions the technical expression ἀρχαία κωμῳδία does not appear to designate
Aristophanic comedy, but that παλαιὰ κωμῳδία refers to both the ‘Old’ and the
‘New’. Rutherford [(2009) 243] refers to this poetess along with other late poetesses
12 Introduction

nature, were an important way of orally circulating texts and, to a significant

extent, of transmitting literary heritage, as we shall see. The dramatic
performances were often reworkings of pieces from Classical times,
although we must not exclude original works, and there was no shortage of
contemporary genres, as can be seen from the treatment of certain novels
that were reworked and adapted for mimes and pantomimes. Lucian (De
salt. 54; Pseudol. 25) mentions the names of the protagonists of the novels
Ninus and Metiochus and Parthenope, Aesop is a mime character, and the
props of a mime called Leucippe are preserved. This very important fact
clearly indicates that the novel was part of the ‘official’ culture of the time. 54
In turn, novels occasionally alluded to these dramatic spectacles: Achilles
Tatius introduces theatrical episodes (3.15-22) citing Homerists in his plot
(3.20.4), Longus refers to a mimic dance (2.23), and the Life of Aesop (rec.

and sees her as a “poetess probably specialising in ancient comedy”. De Martino

[(2011) 166-167] also considers the possibility that she is an ‘adattatrice’, and adds:
“naturalmente non dobbiamo pensare ad una collega di Aristofane o Menandro, ma
più semplicemente ad un’ autrice di canovacci di mimo, ed ‘arcaica’ potrebbe avere
un valore generico, non tecnico”. Pliny (Ep. 6.21) does not mention any works
written by women, but says that Vergilius Romanus had written a comedy in the
‘Old’ style, and, before this, other comedies in imitation of Menander: cf. Csapo and
Slater (1994) 37-38; May (2006) 14; Nervegna (2013) 100-117. See Bowie [(2007)
50, n.1] on the opposition of Aelius Aristides to the introduction of an ‘Old’ type of
comedy in the Dionysia of Smyrna, and this volume, n. 25. In Ruiz-Montero (2013)
types of comedies are discussed in connection with Antonius Diogenes, who calls
himself an author of a κωμῳδία παλαιά. According to Bosnakis [(2004) 102], an
inscription from Aphrodisias listing prizes in a talent contest (CIG nº 2759) mentions
a καινὴ κωμῳδία, a “nova fabula, non iterata”, compared to a ἀρχαία κωμῳδία,
which is translated as repetita fabula, but “non antiqua, qualis est Aristophanea”. In
the same inscription there is a καινὴ τραγῳδία, which should be similarly interpreted.
The ἀρχαία in this inscription can thus encompass three types of comedy. The
inscription is published in Roueché (1993), 173-174, nº 53. See also the discussion
by Nervegna (2013) 100-117. When dealing with the topic of new versions of plays,
on p. 97 she thinks that the diaskeuaí in D. Chrys. 32.94 are new versions of
contemporary comedies, works presented initially as “new plays and later revised to
be performed again as new plays”.
54 On the connections between novels and mime and pantomime: Mignogna (1996)

and (1997); Andreassi (2001) and (2002). For a comparison between Lucian’s On
Dance and the Greek novels see Ruiz-Montero (2014a). The greater part of the
pantomime contents mentioned by Lucian belong to traditional mythology. As for
mimes, they derive mainly from comedy and Euripidean tragedy.
 Aspects of Orality and Greek Literature in the Roman Empire 13

G 23) alludes to the movements of the hands in pantomime. 55 Although no

pantomime libretto has been preserved, they must have existed, albeit
perhaps written for each performance. Moreover, given the contents of
pantomimes and the technical skills required, the authors of such scripts
must have been of a certain educational level, as were the audience, who
recognised the stories told through dance. This is a further proof of the oral
circulation of these contents and of the existence of a ‘gestural grammar’
with which the audience was also well acquainted. 56
Parker rejects the idea of an ‘oral circulation’ of literature, on the
grounds that a text is known to have been performed later for others. He
gives two examples in which the original texts have been altered and
concludes that they are presented, but not circulated orally. Dio’s works,
however, provide some useful information: he mentions that some of his
speeches will be delivered again in the future before other audiences (11.4-
6; cf. 57.11); that he is repeating a written speech (30.6-8); and that his
speeches are disseminated and changed (42.4-5). These changes in texts are
proof enough of their oral circulation, although they do not preclude the
existence of a previous written text, or the possibility that they were written
down after a performance, no matter what the genre involved was: Libanius
(Or. 1.113) informs us that ten copyists (bibliographoi) wrote down his
speech, so that it could reach the main cities of the Empire, and that one of
the scribes was bribed to alter the text. Likewise, some of Lucian´s
observations (How should one write history 5, 7, 10, 51) seem to support
the view that oral performance of historiographical works was still
considered the best way of dissemination and that historians achieved praise
and honour through their readings. 57 In the 4th century A.D., Libanius is
very proud still of the fact that the prologues to his speeches are sung
everywhere and that his audience is able to memorise his speeches after
hearing them only once (Or. 1.55). He even states that his students could
reconstruct their teacher´s entire speech from the small passages each one

55 On mime at rhetorical school see Webb (2008) 96 ff. Parker [(2009) 213-214]
states that we read nothing about mimes because it was “a score for public or private
performance” [in Kenney’s words (1982) 12], except for literary mimes.
56 The influence of pantomime on high literature has been described by Zanobi

(2014) for Senecan theatre, and by May (2006) and Kirichenko (2010) for Apuleius’
Metamorphoses.
57 These are the conclusions of Zelnick-Abramovitz (2014) 183; see p. 184 for

historiography as a performative genre, no less than poetry or drama, and her

observations on the process of writing down oral local traditions, which are then
broadcast again in oral presentations.
14 Introduction

of them could remember (Or. 3.17). Parker is right, however, when he

asserts that a public reading does not indicate a lack of private reading. 58
We will not spend long here on the nature of the oral performance
typical of the orators of the Second Sophistic, whether or not such
performances involved previously prepared speeches or were simply
improvised. In any case improvisation presupposes many previous readings. 59
The success enjoyed by recitatio or ‘public reading’ at Rome is well-known,
as was the success of another type of performance, the declamatio. 60
Recitation, however, was omnipresent and was regarded as a kind of
entertainment that competed with other forms to which we have previously
referred, as they often shared certain performance venues, such as the
theatre. 61 Valette-Cagnat even considers it likely that certain recitationes in
Rome were ‘dubbed’ by a pantomime to facilitate comprehension, similar
to how the songs of Nero were ‘mimed’ by a hypocrita. 62
In Petronius’ Satyrica the poet Eumolpus recites (recitantem) the
verses that he had previously probably invented and composed, in – among
other places – a theatre (90.5) and in baths (91.3). Interestingly, besides epic

58 See Parker [(2009) 195-198] with many references; he does not believe that a book
could reach ultimos Britannos by means of wandering poets, a mime adaptation, or
other people who could memorise a “distant recitatio”, but only “in the form of a
written text” (pp. 214-215). Zelnick-Abramowitz [(2014) 193] also admits that the
performance of historical works was not intended as a substitute for written texts.
59 Theon [Prog. praef. 60, Spengel; also ch. 13-14 (Kennedy)] underlines the

importance of anagnosis and akroasis (cf. Cic. Arch. 18: dicere ex tempore):
Kennedy (2003). See also Bowie and Mestre in this volume.
60 declamatio and recitatio constitute a very broad subject, but for their origins,

development and main features, see Funaioli (1914); Quinn (1982) 168-175;
Pennacini (1989); Fedeli (1989); Salles (1992); Valette-Cagnat (1997); Parker
(2009); White (2009); W. A. Johnson (2009).
61 See the data in Korenjak (2000) 36, 41-65. Valette-Cagnat [(1997) 163-164] links

the recitatio with Pliny’s dictating to his secretary of what he had previously
prepared in his head (Ep. 9.36.7), a procedure that Valette-Cagnat calls ‘oral
writing’. Dictatio would be followed by scriptum, recitatio, and rescriptum, novum,
that is, the work already finished and presented to readers. She labels the
phenomenon ‘littérature de la voix’ in Rome (167), with osmosis between the written
and the spoken word.
62 Valette-Cagnat (1997) 119. On pp. 160-161 she distinguishes between recitatio,

which is serious, and the Greek akroama, whose function was merely the
entertainment of dinner guests, although she states that both categories were not
strictly maintained, according to Roman satirist’s complaints. When dealing with
the performance of poetry, Parker [(2009) 203-206] also mentions Martial’s insistent
refusal to perform at banquets.