Milovanovic C., Sailing To Sophistopolis

Sailing to Sophistopolis: Gregory of Nazianzus and Greek
Declamation
Celica Milovanovic
Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 13, Number 2, Summer 2005, pp.
187-232 (Article)
Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2005.0025
For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/183928
Access provided at 4 Apr 2019 10:33 GMT from UniversitÃƒÂ degli studi di Pisa
MILOVANOVIC: / SAILING TO SOPHISTOPOLIS 187
Sailing to Sophistopolis:
Gregory of Nazianzus and
Greek Declamation*
C+ E LICA MILOVANOVIC :
Declamation, as a fictitious speech on a popular stock theme, was developed

in the schools of rhetoric as a means of practicing the rules of forensic oratory,
the so-called staseis. A subset of those stock themes was concerned with
school life in general, and the teacher-student animosity in particular. Gregory
of Nazianzus might have used the school-related themes as inspiration for
some of his own speeches, e.g., Orations 3, 33, 36, etc. Given the fact that a
declamation was supposed to demonstrate a good knowledge of the various
techniques of argument, but was not expected to be based on real events, one
should exercise caution in reading and interpreting Gregory’s speeches as
historical sources. Also, the place of their delivery (lecture hall perhaps), as
well as the occasion (feast days of saints and martyrs, i.e., the pane\gureis),
give further indication that the speeches in question were not sermons/homilies
strictly speaking, but rather educational show pieces sui generis.
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the

influence of forensic (as opposed to epideictic) oratory, specifically of the
kind developed by the Second Sophistic in the eastern part of the Roman
Empire, in the oratorical opus of Gregory of Nazianzus; that discussion
will be substantiated by a detailed rhetorical analysis of some of Gregory’s
orations. Second, the article will attempt to re-examine the overall import
and scope of Gregory’s oratory, as well as to define the exact Sitz im
Leben of at least some of his orations.
* In memory of Professor Miron Flas=ar and all my other teachers from the
University of Belgrade.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 13:2, 187–232 © 2005 The Johns Hopkins University Press
188 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
1. GRECO-ROMAN DECLAMATION
It would hardly have been possible to write this article without the sub-
stantial work on declamation completed within the last fifty years or so
by Stanley F. Bonner, Donald Russell, Michael Winterbottom, and Malcolm
Heath.1 For they have greatly helped us understand and appreciate the
importance of declamation in the educational system, the social and
cultural life, and the literary production of the early and later empire.
Declamation—defined as a public display of oratorical skill in compo-
sition and argumentation, often including improvisation on a given theme—
was the crowning achievement of Greco-Roman rhetorical education.2 It
required an impressive level of learning that could only be reached through
years of study of grammar, prose composition, and argumentation; by
assiduous reading of the classics; and, above all, by following the live
example of a master orator, that is, one’s teacher.3 Those who completed
this course of study were understandably proud of their accomplish-
ments. They were lionized by the community and were considered ready
for a career in politics, administration, letters, or the teaching of rhetoric
itself.
This type of rhetorical education in turn exercised a significant influ-
ence on the literary production of the day. In modern scholarly literature,
however, the influence of rhetoric is more often than not studied only as a
function of the preliminary exercises, the so-called progymnasmata. The
influence of the higher-level training, the one concerned with actual speech
composition and argumentation (i.e., the staseis), has been by and large
neglected. Or to be more precise, if studied at all, the comprehensive
speech composition is typically dealt with in the context of epideictic
oratory (speeches of praise or blame). The two other branches of oratory,
1. S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire

(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1949); M. Winterbottom, Roman Declama-
tion, extracts edited with commentary (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1980); D. A.
Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); D. Innes
and M. Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor, Studies in the Text of the Diaireseis
Zetematon (London: University of London, Institute of Classical Studies, 1988);
M. Heath, Hermogenes, On Issues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995); and D. A. Russell, Libanius: Imaginary Speeches. A
Selection of Declamations with Notes (Oxford: Duckworth, 1996).
2. The most common Latin names for this type of exercise (after Cicero) are
declamatio or quaestio, subdivided into controversia (= scholastica) and suasoria:
Bonner, Roman Declamation, 1. The corresponding Greek term is melete\: Russell,
Greek Declamation, 10; and Heath, On Issues, 18.
3. For a detailed description of the rhetorical curriculum, see Heath, On Issues, 11.
the judicial and deliberative, have for a long time been dismissed as
irrelevant in literary studies.
This misconception is due to several factors: a relative lack of familiar-
ity with ancient declamatory literature; a widespread belief—going back
to the ancients themselves4—that judicial and deliberative oratory had
completely disappeared in the early Roman Empire, due to a sharp de-
cline in political freedom and freedom of debate; and finally, the very
complexity of the literary theory underlying the forensic and deliberative
oratory. The problem of complexity has also been compounded by the
fact that the stasis theory has survived in only one text, Hermogenes’ On
Issues, a text full of technical considerations and obscure terminology. In
contrast, the theory concerning epideictic oratory has long been available
in a convenient and lucidly written treatise by Menander Rhetor.5 Thus,
the intrinsic difficulty of the stasis theory and of the chief text that
preserves it, namely Hermogenes, coupled with the a priori judgment
about its supposedly restricted relevance, has long been a major impedi-
ment to the students of late antique literature. Today, however, the situa-
tion is different. The translation of Hermogenes’ treatise (with commen-
tary) by M. Heath has recovered the full meaning and significance of the
text and has opened all kinds of possibilities for further research, in
particular in the field of late antique Christian oratory.
The stasis theory, in brief, is an attempt to define in a methodical way
all the possible approaches that a prosecutor, or a defendant, may use in
arguing his case. The cases themselves and the situations in which they
might arise are, of course, infinitely diverse; an apprentice lawyer/orator
therefore needs some help in deciding where to begin, what to say, and
how to organize the speech, whatever the case under consideration might
be. That is why the teachers of rhetoric developed a “first help” system,
meant to guide the young orator through the process of composition. It
consists of a list of relatively simple questions that, if properly answered,
could provide the speaker with the right structure for his speech.
For example, supposing the lawyer/orator has to deal with a case of
theft, he should start by asking: Did it really happen? If the answer is not
obvious, he could build the whole speech around this uncertainty and
that would be called the conjecture issue. Conversely, if the fact of the
4. E.g., Seneca, Tacitus, Ps.-Longinus (all conveniently collected in D. A. Russell

and M. Winterbottom, Ancient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in New
Translations [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972]).
5. Greek text with Eng. trans. in D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).
theft is beyond doubt, the next question would be: How is the event to be
categorized, that is, whether as a theft, or larceny, robbery, etc. (= defini-
tion issue)? Next, how is the event to be evaluated (= quality issue)? Was
the person by any chance justified in taking another’s possessions (= coun-
terplea issue)? Or was he wrong in taking the property, but still justified in
some other way (= counterposition issue)? Is somebody else to blame for
the theft seemingly committed by this person (= transfer of blame)? Was
the proper procedure followed in prosecuting the case (= legal issues)?
And so forth.
Declamation, that is, a speech meant to demonstrate the student’s or
the teacher’s own ability in arguing a legal case, is a prime example of the
applied stasis theory. Its influence was not limited to oratory only; it went
much further and was felt in many literary genres. Also, it is important to
remember that declamation almost certainly contained an element of
entertainment too. Not only did teachers and students have fun in craft-
ing their declamations, but the public at large also enjoyed listening to
them. Public displays of declamations, even organized competitions, were
important social events.6 And even after the event itself, certain speeches
were circulated in a published form—due, apparently, to their wide
popularity.7
A survey of the typical themes, that is, the presumed legal cases handled
in declamatory settings, shows a marked preference for highly contrived,
melodramatic situations. Such situations might have been meant to imi-
tate reality, but the imitation was exaggerated and distorted to the point
6. A good glimpse at the activities of a professional orator can be gained

throughout the autobiographical Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides: C. A. Behr, Aelius
Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968). The opportu-
nities for public display of oratory—and of all three kinds (judicial, deliberative, or
epideictic)—were many: religious festivals (pane\gureis), with or without athletic
games but almost always including the oratorical/poetic competitions; meetings of
various local and regional governing bodies; visits by high state officials; dedications
of new buildings; school related events, such as the end of the school year, the awards
ceremonies, etc.; speaking tours, domestic and foreign alike; private celebrations such
as birthdays, weddings, and funerals, for which it was customary to commission a
speech by a professional orator; unusual events such as earthquakes or other natural
disasters; etc. The venues for public speaking were numerous too: the theater, the
odeion, various porticoes on the agora, the temples, government buildings, and
private houses (including the speaker’s own). If unable to deliver a speech in person,
the orator could send his speech to the recipient in the mail. In one respect, however,
Aristides was not a typical orator: he had never taken money for his speeches, nor did
he ever charge a fee to his students.
7. E.g., Libanius, Oration 26, The Morose Man and His Talkative Wife (Russell,
Imaginary Speeches, 113).
of absurdity.8 The legal underpinnings of at least some declamations

could have been realistic to a certain extent,9 but the cast of characters
was certainly not. It included, among others, famous generals and politi-
cians of the distant past, tyrants and pirates, war heroes, disowned sons,
wicked stepmothers, morose husbands and chattering housewives, maid-
ens in distress, and innocent victims of all kinds.10 Significantly enough,
their stories, no matter how outlandish and fantastic, were well known to
all. For again and again the same characters and situations used to crop
up in different places and at different times, defended or prosecuted, as
the case may be, by famous or merely aspiring orators using all imagin-
able legal strategies.
The world in which these characters lived and struggled with each
other was obviously not the real world. It was an everlasting world of
fantasy, created by teachers and students of oratory: D. Russell calls it
appropriately the world of Sophistopolis.11 The echoes from that world,
be they discreet reminiscences or direct borrowings, can be found in
authors spanning at least four centuries: from Lucian, Aelius Aristides,
and Apuleius in the second century to Libanius and Himerius in the
fourth century to Choricius of Gaza in the sixth century.12 Christian
orators were not immune to its charms either—witness Gregory of
Nazianzus himself, several of whose orations were actually declamations,
not real speeches, as we will attempt to demonstrate.13
What made declamation different from other forms of rhetorical exer-
cise was its firm organization.14 The rules of composition were spelled out
in great detail. The style too, although not as strictly defined as the
8. The taste for contrived plots and melodrama seems to be somewhat more
pronounced on the Latin side: Russell, Imaginary Speeches, 6 (an example from
Quintilian, Major Declamations 6).
9. Bonner, Roman Declamation, 108; and Russell, Greek Declamation, 37. See
also L. A. Sussman, The Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian: A Translation
(Frankfurt: Verlag P. Lang, 1987), Introduction, vi.
10. For a comprehensive list of typical themes and characters, in Roman
declamation at least, see L. A. Sussman, The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus:
Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 11.
11. Russell, Greek Declamation, 22.
12. As Russell, Imaginary Speeches, 5, points out, the history of declamation as an
educational tool and a minor literary genre is somewhat sketchy: its origins probably
go back to Hellenistic times, but the oldest extant examples are from first-century
Rome.
13. A few examples from Christian orators are mentioned in Winterbottom,
Roman Declamation, 70.
14. Russell, Greek Declamation, 2; and Innes and Winterbottom, Sopatros the
Rhetor, 10.
composition, nevertheless shows some distinctive features. For instance,

one salient feature is the presence of sententiae (that is, brief pointed
comments, distinguished by sharp wit, brevity, pungency, and epigram-
like economy), which typically occur at the end of a section, marking a
transition in the argument. Second, in terms of general sentence structure,
the short and disjointed sentences surpass by far the complete well-bal-
anced periods.15 As to the figures of style, alliteration is ubiquitous; an-
titheses, often involving parallelism (isokolon), are exceedingly common,
often repeated three or four times in a row; apostrophe, play on words
(paronomasia), and hyperbole are ever present too.16
All of these features can easily be observed in both Roman and Greek
declamation. On the Greek side, however, some additional elements are
noticeable as well, such as the “oh-style” (multiplication of apostrophe),
the “list-style” (an exhibition of vocabulary skills), and the “theme-and-
variation style” (two or more synonymous phrases following each other).17
But most of all, as M. Winterbottom put it, “we are looking for a certain
tone of voice, hectic, hectoring and melodramatic,”18 which may be our
best guide in the search for declamatory elements in Greek and Roman
literature.
Gregory the Theologian, commonly known as Gregory of Nazianzus
(ca. 330–390), received a thorough rhetorical education in some of the
best schools of the time, in Caesarea of Cappadocia, Caesarea of Pales-
tine, Alexandria, and Athens; in Athens alone he spent more than ten
years, before he returned to his native country, a man nearly thirty years
old.19 His hard-won and by then considerable oratorical reputation had
preceded him there: everyone, it seems, was proud of the native son who
had done so well abroad, and there was a great eagerness to hear him
perform. Thus, upon returning to his hometown he had to show a “little
indulgence to the world and the stage” (kosmo\ te kai ske\ne\), just so as to
gratify the general desire; however—as he hastens to add—he had done it
as a concession to his friends and well-wishers and “not from any per-
15. As demonstrated elsewhere, the short, disjointed sentences were characteristic

of the so-called grand style (meant to “sway the minds” of the audience), while the
long, flowing, elaborate periods corresponded to the middle style (the one meant to
please and enchant the listener): C+. Milovanovic;, “Three Levels of Style in Augustine
of Hippo and Gregory of Nazianzus,” Rhetorica 11.1 (1993): 1–25.
16. Bonner, Roman Declamation, 51.
17. Innes and Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor, 7.
18. Winterbottom, Roman Declamation, 60.
19. R. R. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1969), 18.
sonal inclination to theatrical display” (ouk eikhomen theatriko\s oude

epideiktiko\s).20 For he himself presumably “placed no value upon vapid
applause, or upon those stupid and intricate conceits which are the de-
light of sophists when a crowd of youth confronts them.”21
The “stage” and “theatrical display” in the passage quoted above
could easily pass unnoticed or be understood as metaphorical expres-
sions. But they are not metaphors; they are technical terms referring to
public declamation, as rightly noticed by a modern commentator.22 Fur-
thermore, the “sophist” and the “crowd of youth” are not common
nouns either, but again precise technical terms. The “sophist” is a profes-
sional teacher and a star on the declamation circuit; the “crowd of youth”
represents his students and other devoted fans who flock to his perfor-
mances,23 always ready to supply a theme for him to improvise upon.
It is also known that at that time Gregory worked, albeit briefly, as a
professional teacher of oratory.24 And although his life and career soon
turned in another direction, his love of words and his intellectual indebt-
edness to the rhetorical training he had received remained manifest in all
of his subsequent literary activity. Today he is even credited with develop-
ing his own special brand of philosophical rhetoric, where oratorical
virtuosity went hand in hand with a clear understanding of dialectics, that
is, the logic and force of various forms of arguments.25
20. Oration 43.25 (trans. Browne and Swallow, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory
Nazianzen, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, NPNF 7 [New York: Christian Literature
Publishing Company, 1894; repr. Hendrickson Publishers, 1994], 404).
21. Carm. 2.1.11.265ff. (trans. D. M. Meehan, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: Three
Poems, FC 75 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1987], 84).
22. J. Bernardi, Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 42–43, SC 384 (Paris: Éditions du
Cerf, 1992), 181. According to Bernardi, the word theatron designates “la salle des
conférences,” a lecture room or a public hall; Gregory would have given his
performances/oratorical displays in his hometown of Nazianzus, as well as in
Caesarea of Cappadocia.
23. The audiences of a thousand or more: Russell, Imaginary Speeches, 7.
24. Meehan, FC 75:8; and Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, 28 and 160. Although
Gregory acted as a professional orator for only a short time, he continued to teach
(unofficially) even later, as a priest and coadjutor of his father in Nazianzus; several of
his students from that time period are known by name, e.g., Eulalius, Helladius,
Eudoxius, and Cledonius. See Episkop Atanasije, Grigorije Bogoslov: Praznic=ne
besede [= Gregory the Theologian: Orations for the Great Feast Days] (Trebinje i
Vrnjac=ka banja, 2001), 14.
25. F. W. Norris, Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: The Five Theological Orations
of Gregory Nazianzen, Introduction and Commentary by F. W. Norris, Translation by
L. Wickham and F. Williams, Supplemants to Vigiliae Christianae 13 (Leiden: Brill,
1991), 17.
Living at the time that he did, however, in the century that marked a
decisive turning point in the history of Christianity, Gregory often had
trouble justifying his love of learning and literature. His conscious atti-
tudes toward classical rhetoric and his statements on the relative impor-
tance of biblical and classical scholarship have been analyzed in detail in
modern literature.26 Also, his entire opus has been repeatedly searched for
traces of some conditioned, automatic-response rhetorical features that
would have come from his early immersion in classical culture.27 Never-
theless, the declamatory element and its significance in Gregory’s work as
a whole has remained largely unknown to this day.
It is true that someone like M. Guignet, in an excellent study of Gregory’s
prose style, did discuss his speech-composition procedures and even singled
out a number of features originating specifically in forensic oratory.28
However, neither Guignet nor the more recent researchers have ever
attempted a systematic treatment of Gregory’s use of the stasis theory.29
And yet without a doubt, some of Gregory’s well-known speeches are
pure declamations and could even have been created as a teaching tool for
the stasis theory itself.30
Our intention here is to provide evidence that this indeed was the case
and that some of Gregory’s speeches should be read today not as histori-
cal documents, but rather as textbook model speeches. The implications
of such an interpretation might go beyond the usual classical influences:
they might open the way to a radically new reading of Gregory’s oratori-
cal opus in its entirety.
A collection of forty-five speeches has come down to us under Gregory
of Nazianzus’ name. Opinions vary as to whether the collection was
assembled by Gregory himself or by someone else after his death.31 In any
26. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, 156.

27. The most comprehensive study remains M. Guignet, S. Grégoire de Nazianze
et la rhétorique (Paris: A. Picard, 1911). Also, Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus.
28. Guignet, S. Grégoire de Nazianze, 211.
29. Although some scholars have pointed out the importance of the stasis theory in
Gregory, I do not see that they have demonstrated clearly how the theory applies to
his oratorical opus. See G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 215; and Norris, Faith Gives Fullness,
31.
30. The question of Christian education, its proper form and content, was clearly
very important to Gregory, as it was to his friend Basil. It is known for a fact that
much of Gregory’s poetic production was meant primarily for educational purposes.
Therefore, it is only likely that some of his prose works were also meant for Christian
(specifically monastic?) schools.
31. J. Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers, 1960), 3:240, claims that
the forty-five Orations represent “evidently only a selection made soon after his
event, Gregory’s immense popularity and subsequent influence in Byzan-

tine literature have been based primarily on the speeches and not so much
on his other writings.32 Nevertheless, the true, original scope of the whole
collection has remained somewhat of a mystery. In this article I propose
to analyze some of Gregory’s speeches that have a distinctly declamatory
character. But before I do so, I should consider some of his literary
predecessors, contemporaries, and later imitators in order to be able to
define Gregory’s place within the literary tradition.
2. ARISTIDES, LIBANIUS, HIMERIUS, CHORICIUS,

AND THEIR UNRULY STUDENTS
Let us start by taking a look at one of Gregory’s predecessors and presumed
oratorical models, Aelius Aristides.33 One of his speeches, Oration 33, To
Those Who Criticize Him Because He Does Not Declaim, might have had
a direct influence on some of Gregory’s orations.34 The theme of the speech
is a conflict between Aristides and his students caused by the (inadequate)
number and frequency of his lectures. However, this does not seem to have
been an isolated incident. Other witnesses, albeit later than Aristides, refer
to similar problems. Thus the speech could very well have been fictitious,
that is, not based on any concrete event but composed for show. As to that
particular type of conflict (the presumed “war” between the teachers and
students), it must have been in the eyes of Aristides’ audience as real as the
death.” On the other hand, J. Bernardi, La prédication des pères cappadociens: Le

prédicateur et son auditoire, Publications de la Faculté des letters et sciences humaines
de l’Université de Montpellier 30 (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1968), is of
the opinion that Gregory himself had made a careful selection of speeches that he
wanted preserved for posterity.
32. J. Noiret, “Grégoire de Nazianze, l’auteur le plus cité, après la Bible, dans la
littérature ecclésiastique byzantine,” in II Symposium Nazianzenum: Louvain-la-
Neuve, 25–28 août 1981, ed. J. Mossay (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1983),
259–66. See also J. Bernardi, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze: Le Théologien et son temps
(330–390) (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1995), 265. In addition, a certain number of
Gregory’s speeches, sixteen altogether, were singled out and designated for some kind
of liturgical use; this selection had soon become one of the most frequently illustrated
books in Byzantium. See G. Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of
Gregory Nazianzenus (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969).
33. For Aristides as model, see B. Wyss, “Gregor II (Gregor von Nazianz),” RAC
12 (1983): 793–863.
34. Text: Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia, ed. Bruno Keil (Berlin:
Apud Weidmannos, 1958), 2:227; Eng. trans. in C. A. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides: The
Complete Works (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 2:166.
war between husbands and wives, parents and children, rich and poor,
conservatives and liberals, and any number of other rival social groups.35
Although it is not always easy to tell the difference between a real
speech and a declamation, some clues can usually be found in the text
itself. In this case the telltale sign would be the absence of a presentation
(i.e., the narration of events). The reason why the narration of events
might be missing is that the public was typically expected to be familiar
with the main elements of the imaginary legal case. Therefore, the speaker
could start his display speech in medias res, without any preliminary
explanations.36
In the case of Oration 33 the presumed situation can be imagined as
follows: Aristides had been accused by his students of not giving them a
chance to listen to his model speeches (meletas) often enough—which of
course is a crucial step in their education; for how else could they learn
the art of argumentation, if not by listening to him and following his
example? No other information about the situation is given; we do not
know when, to whom, or in what context the students had complained,
nor how Aristides himself has been informed of the complaint. All we
learn is that on this particular occasion the complaining students were not
present. But who exactly the audience was, and why they would want to
listen to a speech about Aristides’ problems with his students, is not
explained in the speech. Considering the fact that all of that information
is missing, one must conclude that Aristides’ Oration 33 is a declamation
on a set theme and not a real speech.
In response to the presumed accusation, then, Aristides delivers a de-
fense speech. The stasis (= issue) on which he rests his defense is counter-
plea (antile\psis), that is, the claim that there was no wrongdoing on his
side and that his behavior was perfectly legitimate. His arguments are
based on the following: (1) the analogy between various arts and crafts,
including the art of oratory; and (2) the personality and character of the
speaker himself. The key concept, or rather the key word, repeated sev-
eral times in the speech and used in a variety of puns is love (sc., of
letters).
35. According to Russell, Greek Declamation, 27, all of these wars were constantly
under way in Sophistopolis—thus providing the orators with a number of ready-made
themes for their declamations.
36. Alternatively, if the public was not familiar with the “case,” the speaker would
give the necessary explanations in the pre-speech introduction called prolalia.
Analysis/Summary Outline of Aristides, Oration 33
Proem (ch. 1–2): The speech is being dedicated to a friend who is about
to leave on a journey: “May the gods grant that you sail with a fair wind.
. . . and again may they grant to us to compete in our contest with a fair
wind and to surpass all the Greeks.”37
Second proem [“in the manner of Stesichorus”38] (ch. 3): Those
against whom these words are directed are not present. However [= the
preliminary argument or part of right], it is obvious that our conduct is
not to blame . . . but rather their customary sloth in all matters.
Definition [= the charge] (ch. 4): They say that I do wrong because I do
not declaim frequently (tas meletas to\n logo\n ou poioumenon). And they
say, “if only he wished to, he could do it more often!” What nonsense!
Let me tell you one thing, however—this is not going to be a pleasant
speech! This is not a public festival (ou pane\gurizo\n tugchano\), and I am
going to tell the whole truth, just as if my opponents were here present.
Counterdefinition [introduced by the proverb “the thieves accuse”] (ch.
7): It is they, the bad students, who ignore me and neglect to come to
lectures; actually, they behave like those people who, when the sun is
shining brightly, close their eyes and then complain that they can see
nothing.
Argument from the arts and professions [= the legislator’s intention] (ch.
8–10): The artists/craftsmen are supposed to practice their arts, and not to
waste their time looking out for customers; it is up to the users of their
products/services to seek them out when they need them. A doctor should
always be ready with his drugs and surgery, but the sick man must send
out for him; the same with the helmsman and those who need to sail, the
judge and the claimants, the general and the soldiers, the farmer, the smith,
37. Trans. Behr, P. Aelius Aristides, 2:166. “To compete in our contest” translates
the Greek ago\nizesthai. In the world of declamation, that expression has the specific
meaning of two speakers delivering a speech on the same theme, one on the side of the
“prosecution” and the other on the side of the “defense.” NB: All subsequent
passages from Aristides’ Oration 33 that are set in quotation marks are from Behr’s
translation; the rest are my own paraphrases.
38. In a retraction of his former view, Stesichorus had written that the “real” Helen
had never gone to Troy: the one who did go to Troy was but a ghost, phantom,
shadow [Stesichorus, Fragment 32; see also Plato, Phaedr. 243]; similarly, Aristides’
opponents are also “shadowy,” but that does not prevent him from considering the
charge “as if it were a kind of affidavit or suit” (obviously in imitation of the conceit
found in Plato’s Apology of Socrates 18d).
the carpenter, the barber—all of them are sought by those who need their
services; if it were otherwise, the world would be topsy-turvy (adunaton).
Relative importance (ch. 11–13): If such is the case with the lesser arts,
what about the art of oratory? Is it not even more appropriate for the
practitioners of the “best and most liberal faculty, through which all acts
are examined and tested,” to concentrate on the study and practice of
their art and leave to others the task of seeking them out in times of
need? Just like the shoemaker, or the weaver, the orator should not go
about soliciting the audience—such a practice would only lead to
deterioration and cheapening of his art.
Counterplea proper [addressing the opponent in the second person
singular, in a tone of heavy irony] (ch. 14–15): Look here, now, whether
it seems good and reasonable to you that those who desire to marry sit
by the doorways of their girls . . . but that those who claim to be lovers
of oratory neglect cultivating the orator himself . . . and then later
criticize him and say that it is he who is at fault. Of course, it does not
make sense, and you know it yourself—you don’t need a seer to tell you
that! Why the oratory itself has taught you the rules of its proper
employment! [The section ends with a sententia: “It is not likely that
those whose duty it is to judge others are ignorant about themselves.”]
Counterposition (ch. 16): Consider my position, please [second person
plural], and if you find that I am slothful or that I regard anything at all
as more important than the practice of oratory, either now or in the past
. . . criticize me and blame me as you wish; but if my work has been done
and accomplished by the grace of the gods as carefully as possible . . .
then cover your heads in shame . . . since it is you who actually don’t
dare employ me; instead, like women you blame your own faults on
others.
Argument from the person (ch. 17–19): Examine and consider my
whole life from the beginning.39 The god (Asclepius) granted me to have
good teachers and to be gifted for words; ever since, I have devoted my
39. Hermogenes says: “Quality is based on the concomitants of person: if the

person is determinate, [the speaker can use] all the topics of the encomium”; and also:
“The topics of encomium are of course as follows: birth, rearing, education, age,
physical and spiritual nature, occupations, achievements [which is the strongest
head], fortune [e.g., rich, poor, etc.].” See Heath, On Issues, 44 and 37. Therefore, in
this paragraph Aristides is about to write a condensed encomium of himself.
time to oratory, except in periods of poor health; and if I have always

clung to my profession, the reason was that I was under the protection of
“the greatest and most humane helmsman” (Asclepius again). Besides, I
alone, believe me, of all the Greeks of our time did not engage in oratory
for wealth, reputation, honor, marriage, power, or any acquisition; I have
always been the true lover of oratory (erastai to\n logo\n), and that is why
I have been honored by oratory in return.
Thesis (ch. 20): Different people have different interests: some enjoy
the company of boys, some like to bathe, some to drink, some are
interested in horses and dogs, etc. For me oratory is everything: my
children and parents, my work and relaxation; for its sake I invoke
Aphrodite; this is my work and my play; in this I rejoice, this I admire,
its doors I haunt.
Objection (ch. 21–23): Now to answer your claim that the prospect of
acquiring reputation is one of the incentives for my pursuit of oratory;
well, I accept fame, when it comes, but I do not seek it by any other
means beyond oratory itself and the uprightness of my personal life. I
have made as many public appearances as anyone that I know of, and I
did not miss any national festival or assembly (pane\guris, sullogos) as an
opportunity to honor our city publicly; my reputation is so great by now
that I do not even need to engage in contests (ago\nizesthai) any more—
actually, at this point it would be only prudent for me to keep silent in
order to preserve the reputation I now have.
Counteraccusation [in tones of angry resentment] (ch. 24–26): Well,
then, consider your conduct, you “desperate lovers” (o dusero\tes
humeis)! Look at yourselves—but don’t worry; I shall say nothing overly
biting! You playboys wasting your time at the swimming pools, you
jewelry lovers, bath addicts, and admirers of the unworthy, you who
cannot even understand oratorical lectures (akroaseis) when you hear
them! But you attribute your faults to me, and you malign me with your
praise by saying, “would that he wished” and some such things, as if I
were now asleep. As Homer says [= sententia], “whatever you say, such
you should expect to hear in turn.” In sum, it would be extremely
unfortunate for the one who claims to be an orator and who is unjustly
accused not to employ the instruments of his trade in his own defense.
Exploitation-Quality [= the incident placed in the context of the
opponent’s character, previous life, etc.] (ch. 27–28): My opponents are
not good at oratory, but they still inspire fear in me, anointed with oil as
they are, all dressed in red,40 those lovers of swimming pools and of
poetry, who do not invite the public to oratorical displays, but rather to
poetry readings! [Sententia:] This is indeed what we speakers are up
against; this is what like a cloud or a moonless night darkens all the
beauty of education!
Intention (ch. 29): They claim that their love of bathing was inspired
by Homer, but that is not true! That is not what Homer intended when
he spoke of the river Meles as “his father”; he himself lived his life in
perfect squalor and would allow baths only in case of serious sickness.
Common quality (ch. 30): The corruption of our times is beyond
description! Men are afraid of dying all too soon, so they destroy
themselves in expectation of death. They count as gain all that is
shameful, and as a loss all that is good—as if a corrupt body and soul are
going to earn them a good place in the afterlife! But quite the opposite is
true: if we should live at all, let it be in the “finest things, in studies and
in oratory” (en mathe\masi kai logois).
Epilogue [At this point Aristides delivers a series of angry exhortations
to his opponents, the apparent lovers of frequent bathing; the exhorta-
tions are based on the heads of purpose (telika kephalaia)41 and are cast
in the form of rhetorical questions:] (ch. 31–32): Is it more profitable to
bathe regularly or to enjoy oratory, whether as a speaker or a listener? Is
the company of a woman of ill repute to be counted as happiness, but the
company of the first of the Greeks as a curse? Must stomach be gratified,
but the oratory be despised as drivel, “O you who educate the world
before yourselves”? If you want me to speak, make me wish to speak!
This is my last word: I shall not give up speaking as long as the god is
propitious, but as to you, you shall always remain ignorant!
Peroration (ch. 34): You may call these remarks a defense (apologia)
or a well-intentioned censure (epitime\sis), or even a combination of the
two. Still, they were truthful and expedient for all to hear.42
40. “All dressed in red” is my interpretation; the meaning of the passage is

uncertain. The red cloak was typically worn, almost like a uniform, by the students of
rhetoric, while the gray/black cloak designated a student of philosophy (Bernardi, SC
384:159).
41. The “heads of purpose” (telika kephalaia) is a collective term for the standard
topics used to evaluate a course of action, such as legality, custom, justice, honor,
advantage, feasibility, and consequence.
42. The model for this speech was almost certainly Plato’s Apology of Socrates.
Here are some examples illustrating the similarities in thought and expression: “I
The speech ends with an allusion—of questionable taste—to the mytho-

logical heroes Hippolytus and Bellerophon, the two heroes who had been
unjustly accused by women but later exonerated of wrongdoing; it is
understood that Aristides is brave and blameless like those heroes, while
his opponents are base and devious like the unscrupulous women.
The speech is not very long, some 229 lines of Greek text—which is
fairly unusual in Aristides, who is well known for his long, elaborate
pieces meant more for reading than for oral delivery.43 The structure of
the speech is in general accord with Hermogenes’ rules for the counter-
plea stasis.44 The overall impression left by the speech—in spite of some
passages displaying presumably genuine emotion—is one of artificiality
and a lack of convincing argumentation. For instance, the first argument
(i.e., the claim that no practitioner of any art should solicit his customers)
sounds rather hollow; and the second argument, based on the excellent
character of the speaker and his absolute devotion to his art, is not so
much convincing as lacking in modesty and sense of proportion. Besides,
in spite of the almost perfect textbook-like structure, the speech does not
flow evenly. The first half seems to lack coherence, like a patchwork of
lesser themes; the second half is better organized and rests on two major
themes: the praise of himself and the blame of his students.
And yet this speech of Aristides was apparently well known in its day
and closely studied in subsequent centuries. Modern scholars have identi-
fied at least two later speeches that have used it as a model, one by
Libanius and another by Gregory of Nazianzus.
Libanius’ Oration 3, To His Students About His Speech,45 is clearly
related to Aristides’ Oration 33, but the tone of the speech is entirely
different: while Aristides is ponderous and emotionally intense in his
writing, Libanius is a great jester and knows how to make his audience
laugh. The length of Libanius’ speech is almost the same as that of
must fight in some way against a shadow” (ch. 3, cf. Apol. 18d); “Let us consider the
charges as if it were some kind of affidavit or suit” (ch. 3–4, cf. Apol. 19b); “It is
shameful and illegal to abandon one’s position” (ch. 13, cf. Apol. 28d–e); “They
behave like some women” (ch. 16, cf. Apol. 35b); “I did not engage in oratory for
wealth, reputation, honor” (ch. 19, cf. Apol. 36b); “If we should belong to the part
which is saved . . . or, if we are not saved” (ch. 31, cf. Apol. 40c–41c); “I shall not
give up speaking even so, as long as the god is propitious” (ch. 33, cf. Apol. 29d).
43. Aristides’ speeches are sometimes referred to as Lesereden (Russell, Greek
Declamation, 4).
44. For the rules, see Heath, On Issues, 46 and 115.
45. Gk. text: R. Foerster, Orationes (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903), 1:268; Eng. trans. in
A. F. Norman, Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), 183.
Aristides’: 234 lines of Greek text. The overall approach is rather similar:
in both cases it is argued that the students are to blame, while the teachers
deserve only praise and gratitude. Both speakers use the counterplea
issue, but with certain variations: while Aristides seems to be following
the rules quite closely, Libanius modifies the pattern by adding objections
after each heading, and that makes his speech considerably livelier than
Aristides’.
Both authors place emphasis on the students’ lack of love for oratory: o
dusero\tes humeis, exclaims Aristides; ouk ero\ntas to\n epideixeo\n, says
Libanius in his turn. They accuse the (bad) students of being interested in
glory and reputation only, and not in study for its own sake. Also, they
both hint at the bad students’ effeminate behavior—probably a standing
school joke at the time. Libanius, the jester, makes a rather big deal of
such jokes46 and takes every opportunity to make his audience laugh.
Aristides, on the other hand, is not exactly funny, but it is not impossible
that his learned allusions, his veiled mythological jokes (such as the one at
the very end of the speech), and the occasional use of strong language
could have caused his audiences to laugh at times too.
Furthermore, both authors claim some kind of physical impairment
and at the same time boast of their own diligence and industry in spite of
it. They accuse the students of neglecting them, of being disloyal, and of
falling under the influence of other, inferior teachers. They both pledge
that they will be firm and that they will continue in the future as they have
in the past; at the end they both invite the “rascals” to change and to
mend their ways.
Finally, in both speeches there is a noticeable presence of various legal
expressions, such as the charge, guilt, witness, proof, testimony, etc.
Libanius, the virtuoso, ends his speech with an ingenious pun that com-
bines the legal and school/rhetorical terminology.47
46. At one point in the speech there is a pun and a sexual innuendo that are
difficult to translate; see Norman, Antioch, 184. Also, in another passage Libanius
speaks of students fidgeting and picking their noses; such details would provoke
laughter in today’s classroom too.
47. “If you improve—says he to his students—and that is easy if you so wish, then
you will see the fulfillment of all obligations on my side also, and you will see me
extending to you an invitation [kalounta] to such an oration rather than being urged
by you [parakaloumenon] to give it” (trans. Norman, Antioch, 192). Again, the pun
is difficult to translate. The verb kaleo\ (“to call, invite”) alludes to the custom of
inviting the public to a professor’s declamation; parakaloumai, as a legal term, means
“to summon a defendant into court.” Libanius’ audience took it for granted that this
was a mock “trial” and that Libanius was “defending” himself against the charges
brought by his students; therefore, it was easy for them to notice and appreciate the
clever play on words.
Aristides lived in the second century, Libanius in the fourth: Can we be

sure that the two speeches are in any way related? Could it be that the two
similar situations, and the resulting speeches, had arisen quite indepen-
dently from each other? After all, both teachers worked within the same
educational system and could have experienced the same, or similar,
problems with their respective students.
It would be difficult to answer these objections but for the fact that
there exist other speeches of the same kind: the teacher-student struggle
theme occurs, as far as I know, in at least two more authors, Himerius in
the fourth century and Choricius of Gaza in the sixth century. One could
even maintain that school-related themes were quite prominent in the
eastern Sophistopolis, perhaps in contrast to the western one where simi-
lar examples are not readily available.
Himerius’ extant opus does not seem to include a speech that would
correspond closely to the speech of Aristides/Libanius. However, other
similar school-related themes are well represented. Reviewing what re-
mains from Himerius’ speeches, one notices a somewhat different ap-
proach; namely, when Himerius wants to reprimand his students, he does
not use irony and derision as his main weapon; rather, he tells stories,
such as the famous myths or anecdotes from the lives of historical figures,
and presents them as an allegory for his students’ behavior. Most of
Himerius’ speeches, however, are known only in short excerpts that list
the central myth/allegory but do not give any information on the compo-
sition and structure of the whole speech.48 The titles of some of his
declamations are as follows: Improvised [speech] on the Unrest among
His Students; To His Fellow-Teachers; Improvised, to His Students; Against
Those Who Participated in a Fight and Missed the Classes; To Students
Who Seem to Be Disrespectful; That Lectures Should Not Necessarily Be
Public; Practice Makes Perfect [in oratory].
Another witness for the popularity of school-related themes in late
antique declamation is Choricius of Gaza in the sixth century. One of his
declamations, known in excerpted form only,49 has the following title:
Discourse IX, with the subtitle: Since the students are begging that he
speak more often, he will explain why he has waited till now. From the
extant excerpt, we gather that the familiar theme was presented in this
way: the teacher began by reminding the students of the saying “that
everyone should mind his own business”; then he asked why they always
demand to listen to others’ speeches but refuse to speak publicly themselves;
48. Gk. text: A. Colonna, Himerii declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum

fragmentis (Rome: Typis Publicae Officinae Polygraphicae, 1951).
49. Gk. text: R. Foerster, Choricii Gazaei opera (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1972), 129.
and finally, he made a statement that if he were to “compete” there and

then (ago\nizomeno\ moi), he would risk, like the legendary musician
Terpander, not to be able to find a competition worthy of himself.
Up to this point, the author seems to be following the familiar pattern.
But then the tables are turned, as it were, and the teacher has to change
his tactics. The students, unmoved by his upbraiding, have continued
pestering him and asking for a speech; he tries to get rid of them, pretends
to be seriously annoyed, and complains of their “violence.” Then he
overhears them saying that he is a “really mean man”; the remark hurts,
and remembering their former friendliness, he consents to enter the com-
petition (apodusasthai ton ago\na).50
In sum, it is more than likely that school-related themes were rather
common in Greek declamation in late antiquity. One theme in particular
seems to have enjoyed a distinct popularity, and that is the one about the
students clamoring for more speeches and the teacher reprimanding them
for their negligence and other shortcomings. Whether the originator of
that theme was Aelius Aristides himself or someone before him is impos-
sible to tell. In any event, his speech is the earliest extant example and the
presumed model for some of the later speeches.
3. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS AND HIS FICKLE FLOCK

Now we can turn to Gregory of Nazianzus. The possibility that his
Oration 3, To Those Who Have Invited Him and Not Come to Receive
Him,51 was modeled after Aristides’ Oration 33 has been noted, as far as
I know, by only one scholar, namely, B. Wyss.52 In a very brief remark on
the subject, Wyss pointed to a “certain similarity in the speakers’ stand to
the audience”: in both cases the speakers had been forced to give a
speech, but then the listeners have failed to show up. But if Gregory knew
50. Another approach to the same theme can be illustrated by Choricius’ Discourse
27, with the subtitle, Although the young students are asking that we speak more
often, a well-measured spacing out [of public appearances] is not without merit
(Foerster, Choricii Gazaei opera, 310). For other school themes in Choricius, see
Discourse 18, The goal of which is to inspire the young to put in more effort, since
without much practice the arts are bound to fail; Discourse 28, The speech being too
long and demanding another meeting, he apologizes for its length; Discourse 36, On
giving a yearly declamation [ete\sion melete\n] to his disciples; Discourse 37, Against
the one who complained that the length of the speech was not in due proportion to
the speaker’s strength.
51. Gk. text: J. Bernardi, Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 1–3, SC 247 (Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1978), 242–54; Eng. trans. in Browne & Swallow, NPNF 7:227–29.
52. Wyss, “Gregor II (Gregor von Nazianz),” 805.
of Aristides’ speech and used it as a model, then, Wyss concluded, his

version of the speech should be seen as a clear proof of “how deep a
spiritual divide separated him from the sophist.” At first sight the “spiri-
tual divide” between the two authors seems rather deep indeed: Aristides,
the sophist, was playing rhetorical games with his students and delivering
a purely fictitious speech, while Gregory the theologian was speaking
neither in jest nor in a school setting.
Nevertheless, one cannot help but notice that Aristides does not always
speak as a mere “sophist,” that is, someone talking out of both sides of
his mouth; when speaking of his own lifelong devotion to letters and of
his almost religious and mystical appreciation of culture and education,
he sounds quite earnest.53 That particular feature of Aristides’ oratory,
namely, the expression of his unconditional love of letters and learning,
must have appealed to Gregory. Moreover, some of Gregory’s own pro-
testations about the paramount importance of letters in his life might
actually have been inspired by his predecessor Aristides.54
53. For instance, Aristides says: “To this day I have lived devoting my time to
studies and oratory . . . except in periods of ill health and misfortunes too great. . . .
Still we survived . . . clinging to our raft like a kind of Odysseus, since we did not sail
alone, but under the protection of the greatest and most humane helmsman [i.e.,
Asclepius]” (ch. 17). Also: “For me oratory means everything, signifies everything, for
I have made it children, parents, work, relaxation. . . . For this purpose I invoke
Aphrodite; this is my work and my play; in this I rejoice, this I admire, its doors I
haunt” (ch. 20). Or elsewhere: “Enjoy the finest things in life while it is possible, so
that if we should belong to the part which is saved, we may be saved in the finest
things, in studies and in oratory” (ch. 31).
54. For Gregory’s love of words, see H. G. Beck, Rede als Kunstwerk und
Bekenntnis, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Jahrg. 1977, v. 4 (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977), 14; also Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, 162.
Both modern authors quote Gregory’s Oration 6, On Peace, where he says: “This [my
speech] I offer to God, this do I dedicate, my sole remaining possession, my sole
wealth. The rest I have made over to the commandment and the Spirit. . . . And as a
devotee of the word, I cling to the Word alone, and would never willingly neglect this
possession, but on the contrary honor it and embrace it and take more pleasure in it
than in all other things combined that delight the multitude; and I make it the partner
of my whole life, and my good counselor and companion, and my guide on the road
to heaven . . .” (ch. 5) (trans. M. Vinson, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Select Orations,
FC 107 [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003], 6–7). Another
similar passage can be read in Oration 4, Invective Against Julian: “All other things
I have left to those who like them, riches, nobility, glory, power. . . . Words alone I
cleave to, and I do not begrudge the toils by land and sea that have supplied me with
them” (ch. 100) (trans. C. W. King, Julian the Emperor: Containing Gregory
Nazianzen’s Two Invectives and Libanius’ Monody, with Julian’s Extant Theosophi-
cal Works [London: G. Bell, 1888], 67).
Gregory’s Oration 3 is a very short speech, only ninety-six lines of

Greek text. The style of the speech is clearly declamatory, including
several sententiae, the apostrophe, a feigned reluctance to use strong
language,55 and a series of moral exhortations as part of the epilogue. The
nature of the speech is alluded to by the author himself, and quite explic-
itly so: “What will ye [ti boulesthe]? Shall I be judged by you, or shall I be
your judge? Shall I pass a verdict, or receive one; for I hope to be acquit-
ted if I be judged, and if I give sentence, to give it against you justly?”56
In other words, the speech is to be classified as judicial. The author
continues in the same “legal” manner: “The charge against you is that
you do not answer my love with equal measure, nor do you repay my
obedience with honor . . . , but each of you has something which he
prefers. So you deserted me, one to his field, another to his newly bought
yoke of oxen, another to his just-married wife, another to some other
trifling matter” (ch. 3–4). Not only does Gregory tell us that he is taking
to court, as it were, his careless flock—just as Aristides had done with his
students—he also brings up, one by one, the exact same charges. His
parishioners do not love him, they are not loyal to him, they do not
appreciate his efforts and diligence, and they all have other concerns, no
matter how insignificant those might be.
Moreover, scattered throughout the speech we find a number of clever
allusions, thematic and verbal, to the salient elements of Aristides’ speech.
For instance, in the counterplea heading (ch. 14) Aristides was complain-
ing of not being enough cultivated by his students; the students, he had
said, should be taking a cue from the lovers, who are known to spend
entire nights in front of their fiancees’ doors cultivating them (thera-
peuontas), etc. Gregory, in turn, took up both the “wedding” and the
“cultivating” elements; first, he complained bitterly of having been ne-
glected, and he ended the passage with a sententia: “so easily is anything
despised which is easily conquered, and the proud is cultivated [thera-
peuetai], while he who is humbled before God is slighted” (ch. 2); then he
spoke of his speech as something “that I was minded to bestow as a
marriage gift . . . the most beautiful and precious thing of all that I have”
(ch. 5).
55. Clearly, this is another feature of the declamatory style. In this speech Gregory
often repeats phrases such as “to speak gently”; “How shall I put it gently?”; “If I
may make a remark of a more compassionate kind”; “I very nearly let it loose upon
you”; etc.—just as Aristides in his speech was saying: “Be brave, I shall say nothing
overly biting!” (ch. 24).
56. Trans. Browne and Swallow, NPNF 7:228. NB: All subsequent passages from
Gregory’s Oration 3 that are set in quotation marks are from Brown and Swallow’s
translation; the rest are my paraphrases.
To mention one more example, at one point Gregory invites his audi-
ence to hold fast to the faith “by which ye are being saved [so\zesthe] and
trust to save others [allous so\zein]” (ch. 7). Aristides, again, in his speech
(ch. 30) had urged his students to live their whole lives, if they are to live
at all (ei te\s so\zomene\s moiras eie\men), in the finest things, that is, in
studies and in oratory. Gregory, of course, speaks of Christian salvation
by faith, whereas Aristides had something entirely different in mind,
namely, his own poor health and uncertain future. Nevertheless, in spite
of a different context both authors make use of the same literary means
and expressions.
In sum, if Gregory’s general intention here was to Christianize an old
and respected Greek literary model, he has succeeded. Oration 3 is a
small gem. It is short, lively, personal in tone; and it integrates seamlessly
the elements of declamation, literary allusion, and sound Christian doc-
trine. As to the language of the speech, it effortlessly combines numerous
biblical expressions and examples with classical Attic prose, without
compromising the integrity of either.57 The structure of the speech is not
fully developed, due to its brevity no doubt. However, it is clear that it
was conceived as a “self-defense-cum-prosecution” speech—one of
Gregory’s favorite procedures, it seems.58
Analysis/Summary Outline of Gregory, Oration 3
Proem (ch. 1–2): How slow you are, my friends and brethren, to come to
listen to my words! You seem to be better able “to desire the absent
person than to enjoy the present one.” [There follows a series of
accusatory statements where the author establishes his innocence and at
the same time complains of being “tyrannized over” and then ignored by
an unfeeling and negligent community.]
Definition [pretending not to be sure whether to speak in defense of
himself, or as a prosecutor of the missing audience] (ch. 3): Shall I be
judged by you, or shall I be your judge? The charge against you is that
57. A quote from Isaiah (“I became a surfeit unto you before you tasted of me or
gave me a trial” [Isa 1.14]) is used as a sententia at the end of ch. 1; the “marriage”
episode is illustrated by a parable of the wedding feast (Matt 22.1–4; Luke 14.15–24);
Aristides’ common topos “the indescribable corruption of the times” (ch. 30) is
rendered with a quote from Paul (“in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation”
[Phil 2.15]). All together there are twenty-four biblical quotes in this short speech,
almost equally divided between the OT and the NT.
58. In Oration 29, The Third Theological—On the Son, Gregory says: “Every
speech has two parts to it. One part aims at establishing one’s own position; the other
refutes the opposing case” (ch. 1).
you do not answer to my love with equal measure. You all have other
pressing matters to take care of, things that you prefer to both the old
and the new pastor.
Assimilation (ch. 4): There is a banquet in the gospels (Matt 22.1–4)
. . . and you are just like those who had been invited to the wedding feast
but did not show up.
Quality and Intention (ch. 5): I was filled with despondency and
perplexity, and I almost withdrew the marriage gift (i.e., my speech), and
I was all set to give you a good scolding,59 because the unrequited love
has sharpened my tongue.
Importance/Relative Importance (ch. 6): It is not right for me to keep
the grudge; I should stop reproaching you; you are my “sacred flock, the
praise-worthy nurslings of Christ, the Divine inheritance . . . among
whom the Father is exalted, and the Son is held to be equal to Him, and
the Holy Spirit is glorified with them.”
Epilogue [a series of moral exhortations, based on heads of purpose
(telika kephalaia)] (ch. 7): You should have more respect for me
(= fairness); you owe me something, for I love you and you have not
shown love to me (= justice); do show some respect to the image
committed to your care (= legality); it is better to listen and learn about
God than to talk and teach about him (= advantage); hold on to the faith
that you may be saved (= consequences).
Peroration (ch. 8): “So may ye act, and so may ye honor us, whether
present or absent, whether taking your part in our sermons, or preferring
to do something else. Then all our affairs shall prosper . . . in Christ Jesus
our Lord, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.”
What this analysis shows is that Gregory’s Oration 3 is a free—perhaps

improvised, but deliberate—imitation of Aristides’ Oration 33. The im-
provised nature of the speech shows in the accumulation, in a very short
space, of many typical Gregorian themes, such as the violence that he had
suffered from having been “tyrannized over”; his beloved solitude, “the
mother of the divine ascent that deifies human beings”; the theme of the
old and the new pastor (i.e., himself and his father); his love and longing
59. Here we see the tongue-in-cheek nature of this speech. Gregory says: “I very
nearly let it loose upon you . . . for I thought I could get from this a splendid theme
[hupotheseo\s]” (ch. 5). A professional orator is always on the lookout for a good
occasion to display his skills.
for his little flock; his little city that can compete with the greatest cities of
the world, at least when it comes to keeping the right doctrine of the
Trinity; the opposition to the “measurers of the Godhead who by magni-
fying one person more than is fit, diminish and insult the whole”; his own
ambiguous position of authority and of service at the same time; the
nature of true piety, which consists not in speaking often about God but
in being quiet for the most part; the fact that learning about God is more
pleasant and salutary than teaching about him; that walking on the King’s
highway (of virtue) leads one straight through the gates of heaven.
It is traditionally believed that Oration 3 was composed at the very
beginning of Gregory’s career, soon after his ordination as priest. How-
ever, some of the themes just mentioned are prominent in what are consid-
ered to be his later speeches, such as Oration 27, First Theological; Ora-
tion 32, On Discipline in Theological Discourse; Oration 42, Farewell to
Constantinople; and Oration 43, Funeral for Basil. It is hard to believe
that the very same themes were on his mind some twenty years earlier, and
that he would have expressed them in the very same words and phrases.
Another declamatory element shows in chapter 5, where Gregory says
to the audience: “I very nearly let it loose upon you . . . for I thought I
could get from this a splendid theme.” We see here a professional orator
who has come across a good theme. He is all excited, spoiling for fight as
it were, for he knows exactly how to approach it and what to say; for the
theme is a familiar one: a teacher/preacher accused of not speaking often
enough turns the tables on his audience and accuses them of the lack of
interest and diligence. The theme demands a “strong” language of scold-
ing and reprimand. Gregory is about to launch into it with gusto, but then
remembers who he is (a loving shepherd) and to whom he is speaking (his
precious little flock). Thus, he says apologetically: “But it is not permitted
to me at the present time to say to you anything upbraiding, and God
forbid that I ever should.” From that point on, Gregory is himself again,
an upright but mild and benevolent teacher, deeply concerned for his
beloved flock and the preservation of the right doctrine of the Trinity.
In sum, it appears that Gregory’s Oration 3 is a speech that derives its
overall inspiration from the tradition of Greco-Roman declamation. I
find it relevant that Oration 3 is not the only such speech in Gregory’s
opus: a variation on the same (or a similar) theme can be found in
Oration 16, On His Father’s Silence, Because of the Plague of Hail.60
60. Gk. text: PG 35:857–909; also in C. Moreschini, ed., Gregorio di Nazianzo:

Tutte le orazioni. Traduzione italiana con testo a fronte e note di C. Sani and M. Vincelli
(Milan: Bompiani, 2000), 392–415; Eng. trans. in Browne & Swallow, NPNF 7:247–54.
Oration 16, as is commonly believed, was delivered in the year 372/3,

after a series of natural disasters had befallen the community of Nazianzus:
first a prolonged drought, and then a hailstorm that destroyed all the
crops. The situation, presumably, was as follows: the people, grief stricken
and fearful of the future, look to the beloved bishop Gregory the Elder for
comfort and encouragement. The bishop, however, being too old and
shaken by the events himself, is unable to speak publicly. The people then
demand that his son, our Gregory, talk to them. He unwillingly takes to
the pulpit and delivers the speech.
The speech is undoubtedly brilliant, but also rather insensitive by today’s
standards. The basic premise of the speech is that the present disasters are
fully deserved and represent a warning from God; if the people do not
repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness, a real punishment and terrible
scourges will follow. Of course, Gregory does not speak so bluntly. He
softens the message by rhetorical embellishments and biblical examples,
yet the message is clear enough: the people are guilty, and they deserve
their present misfortunes. That apparent lack of tact and sensitivity on
the part of one who calls himself the “sponsor of the loving-kindness of
God” (te\s tou theou philanthro\pias eggue\te\s) (ch. 14) may be an indica-
tion that the speech was not delivered at the time of the actual events, but
was composed as a rhetorical exercise some time after the actual events
had taken place.61
The overall issue seems to be counterstatement [antistasis: an acknowl-
edged prima facie wrong is defended on the grounds of its beneficial
consequences]. The unspoken premise is that the speech had been re-
quested by the people but not delivered on time: that makes it similar to
the group of school speeches where the teacher/priest has to apologize for
his tardiness to his students/parishioners. Like Libanius’ Oration 3, where
the author pretends to be unwilling to speak and yet keeps developing a
speech on the reasons why he should not be speaking, Gregory’s Oration
16 is also based on a paradox. While pretending to refuse to speak and
seemingly urging his father to do so, Gregory actually delivers a whole
speech. This approach, where the speech has one purpose on the surface
but another one in realty, was known in ancient times as the figured
speech (logos esche\matismenos).62
61. An especially insensitive remark—assuming that this speech was ever delivered
as such—can be found in ch. 4, where Gregory urges his father to break his silence in
order “not to give them a foretaste of their impending loss,” thus alluding to the
father’s upcoming demise. It is difficult to imagine Gregory actually saying such a
thing to his father’s face.
62. Russell, Greek Declamation, 37.
To understand the real nature of this speech, however, we should first

try to determine the intended audience. J. Bernardi, who carefully re-
searched the question of Gregory’s audiences, does not seem to have a
clear answer in this case.63 He speaks of the clergy, in particular, as being
present and apostrophized by the speaker. However, how many priests or
deacons could have been present in the small church of Nazianzus on an
occasion like this? One would think not many, if any at all, besides
Gregory and his father. On the other hand, if we assume that the speech,
based on some recollections no doubt, was written years later with a
completely different goal in mind, we can imagine a different kind of
clergy being present. Expressions such as “my beloved children” and “my
brethren” and “you who have been worthy of the same honor as me, the
minister of God” and “our training here through which we are trying to
preserve our original dignity” (ch. 13–15) might refer not to clergy in an
ordinary sense, such as deacons, priests, or bishops, but rather to a group
of young monastics for whose benefit and education Gregory might have
been putting together a collection of model speeches.
That Gregory’s whole collection of speeches represents a “bishop’s
manual” of a kind, meant to illustrate the idea of the perfect bishop, has
already been stated and debated in modern scholarship.64 The perfect
bishop, according to Gregory, should be a monastic in the first place65 and
should receive a proper education, including education in the art of public
speaking.66 Therefore, hoping that at least some of his students might one
day become bishops, Gregory could very well have decided to create a
series of model speeches (i.e., declamations) to address whatever real-life
situations might present themselves in a typical bishop’s career.
Finally, in the general context of school-related oratory, another of
63. Bernardi, Prédication, 118.

64. Bernardi, Prédication, 258; and C. Moreschini, “Struttura e funzioni delle
Omelie di Gregorio Nazianzeno,” in Gregorio Nazianzeno teologo e scrittore, ed.
T. Spidlík, C. Moreschini, and G. Menestrina, Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Scienze
Religiose in Trento 17 (Bologna: EDB, 1992), 151–70.
65. See, for instance, Oration 18, On the Death of His Father, ch. 35. In the fourth
century it was still possible, and quite often the case, that a lay person could be elected
a bishop. On the change in ecclesiastical practices concerning the provenance and
appointment of bishops, see P. Rousseau, “The Spiritual Authority of the ‘Monk-
Bishop’. Eastern Elements in Some Western Hagiography of the Fourth and Fifth
Centuries,” JTS, n.s., 23.2 (1971): 380–419. Also Bernardi, Prédication, 134.
66. In Oration 43, Funeral for the Great Basil, ch. 25–26, Gregory speaks
eloquently against the contemporary practice of elevating to the rank of bishop
persons only recently baptized and lacking in appropriate education; ideally, Gregory
claims, a bishop should start at the lowest level, that of the reader (as the great Basil
had done) and progressively rise to the highest position.
Gregory’s speeches comes readily to mind: Oration 19, On His Sermons

and to the Tax Adjuster Julian.67 In it Gregory complains, as it were, of
being too popular a teacher, constantly in demand and under much pres-
sure to speak on the things of the Spirit. Thus he says: “What am I to do?
They yank and jerk us from one side to the other; they sue for my efforts,
extorting sermons from me as they would payment for any other debt . . .
and they claim they will keep on striking us with their reproaches, like
steel against flint, until they succeed in kindling the full torch of words
from a tiny spark.” Then Gregory adds something equally significant:
“But the most gratifying thing of all is that in order to elicit a speech from
me, they are putting forth the tremendous amount of effort necessary to
ensure that their own words are persuasive. How engaging their eager-
ness to win me over!”68
What we learn from these excerpts is that the whole teacher-student
struggle was like a learning game: the students who were asking for a
speech from the teacher had to produce a decent persuasive speech them-
selves before the teacher would grant them the privilege of listening to his
admittedly highly skilled speeches.
4. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS AND

HIS UNNAMED ENEMIES
Oration 33, Against the Arians and Concerning Himself, is not based on
a school-related theme but can definitely be described as declamatory too.
Many scholars consider it to be somehow different from Gregory’s other
speeches. M. Guignet was aware that it was done in the manner of a
judicial speech, and he declared it “a perfect speech of indictment . . .
done in the pure classical tradition of Attic lawyers and logographers.”69
The modern editor of the speech, C. Moreschini,70 considers it one of the
“most personal,” as well as one of the “most beautiful,” of Gregory’s
speeches.71 J. Bernardi, on the other hand, has come to the conclusion that
this speech was committed to writing but never publicly delivered orally.
He later briefly considered the possibility that the speech was delivered in
67. Gk. text (with It. trans.) in Moreschini, Tutte le orazioni, 478–93; Eng. trans.
in Vinson, FC 107:95–106. The overall structure of the speech, however, is different
from the other speeches discussed so far and will be mentioned later in a different
context.
68. Trans. Vinson, FC 107:96.
69. Guignet, S. Grégoire de Nazianze, 256.
70. Gk. text: C. Moreschini, Grégoire de Nazianze: Discours 32–37, SC 318 (Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1985); Eng. trans. in Browne & Swallow, NPNF 7:328–34.
71. Moreschini, “Struttura e funzioni,” 156.
a secular setting but abandoned that idea and reaffirmed that the speech
had been created in written form only.72
Whether only written or actually delivered at one time, the speech has
always been puzzling to those who study the historical context of Gregory’s
writings. The references to contemporary events in it are just too vague to
be interpreted with any certainty. For instance, the description of an
outrageous attack and desecration of an orthodox church (ch. 3) has been
variously understood either as a reference to an attack on the Anastasia
church in Constantinople or as a reference to the attack on the Theone
church in Alexandria.73
Moreover, the main theme of the whole speech is far from obvious. On
the surface, it is a very spirited defense, but from what charges and
against whose accusations? The traditional title states: “Against the
Arians”; and indeed, the arguments used against the opponents in the
speech mostly fit such an interpretation. But there are several objections
that should be considered. First, although Gregory does not name his
“enemies” in the speech, he does mention Arians by name at one point
(ch. 16) as one of the numerous heresies to avoid. If the whole speech had
been conceived as an attack on the Arians, then why would they be
included in the list of other heresies, and only at the very end of the
speech? And even if we assume that the speech concerns (mostly) the
Arians, then we must find an explanation for the sudden and unexpected
appearance, in the middle of the speech, of Gregory’s archenemy, the
emperor Julian; for although no one seems to have noticed it, Julian’s
presence (i.e., an allusion to his ill-fated attempt to sideline the Chris-
tians) is definitely lurking in here too.74
72. Bernardi, Prédication, 165. In his later work (Théologien et son temps, 194),
Bernardi speculates that the speech was written for the specific purpose of being sent
to the followers of Demophilus, the Arian bishop of Constantinople.
73. Moreschini, SC 318, Introduction, 24.
74. The passionate plea and challenge to the opponent in ch. 2 bring to mind the
emperor Julian: “Let us compare the times with one another, you your emperor and
I my sovereigns, you Ahab and I Josias. Tell me of your moderation, and I will
proclaim my violence. But indeed yours is proclaimed by many books and tongues,
which I think future ages will accept as an immortal pillory for your actions. . . .”
Although most modern commentators assume that Ahab symbolizes the emperor
Valens, while Josias refers to Theodosius (Moreschini, SC 318:160), the “many books
and tongues” and the “immortal pillory” might be referring to the emperor Julian,
whom Gregory had “exposed on the pillory” of his Orations 4 and 5 (Invectives
Against Julian) also known as the “infamous” speeches (ste\leutikoi logoi). In the same
vein, the question from ch. 13 (“Which abhorrent [= spat upon] imperial edict have
we emulated?”) refers probably to Julian’s interdiction against the Christians teaching
classical Attic language and literature, and not to Theodosius’ edict in favor of the
orthodox, as assumed by some commentators.
But the most decisive argument, I think, lies in the structure of the
speech itself and the heads (headings) used in it; in the counterposition,
for instance, which is probably the most prominent element in the struc-
ture, Gregory clearly defends himself against the accusations that he is an
outsider in Constantinople, that he has neither the background nor the
authority to be the bishop of that proud city. Considering, then, the
mostly personal nature of the attack, it seems more likely that Gregory’s
enemies in this case were not necessarily, or not only, the Arian heretics,
but rather a mixed bag of present and former opponents who have all
envied, insulted, or injured him at one time or another in the past.
The overall vagueness of background information, puzzling and irritat-
ing as it may be, is on the other hand a strong indication that the speech
might be a declamation. The style is for the most part forensic (also
known as grand, as opposed to the low and middle levels of style). The
pace is fast moving; short and crisp sentences are filled with pointed
rhetorical questions, apostrophe, heavy irony, exclamations, etc. Almost
every paragraph ends with a sententia, some of Gregory’s own making
and some cleverly chosen from the Bible. The overall issue seems to be
counterplea.
Proem (ch. 1–2): Where are all those who have insulted me in the past?
Do you [sing.] arm yourself again? Is this a new faith? Hold on a little
while, that I may speak. I will not insult you, but I will convict you.
Arguments from person/counterdefinition (ch. 3–5): I have done
nothing wrong—and here is a list of things that I have not done, but you
certainly have done them, and many more, to me and to my people, the
orthodox Christians.
[This whole long section is cast in a series of rhetorical questions, such
as: “What mob have I led against you? What soldiers have I armed?
What house of prayer have I made a burial ground?” etc. In between the
questions there are apostrophes, such as: “O precious Throne, seat and
rest of precious men . . . which heathen speaker have we let mount you?”
Or: “O modesty of Virgins . . . which of us has shamed thee?” The
rhetorical questions/accusations against the enemy are organized accord-
ing to the heads of purpose, showing that the opponent’s actions go
against all the principles of legality, custom, justice, honor, nature itself,
truth, advantage, and piety.
Some of the incidents apparently had happened a considerable time
before, so the opponent may not even remember them: “but (= sententia)
he who suffers has a better memory.”75]
Objection [from the opponent] (ch. 6–7): The city you are coming
from is too small, practically no more than a village, while we live in a
magnificent city [a list of famous buildings and monuments in
Constantinople follows].
[Answer:] Who in his right mind would abuse a dolphin for not being
a land animal, or an ox because it is not aquatic, or a lamprey because it
is amphibious (adunaton)? Besides, you see, I am a philosopher—a big
city or a small city, what does it matter to a philosopher?
Legislator’s intention: Neither do I think much of riches—our law
prohibits that, and we live so simply and from hand to mouth as to differ
but little from the beasts.
Objection (ch. 8): But you are dressed in rags and your face lacks grace
and elegance; you are not sufficiently educated and you speak with a
foreign accent; you have no small talk whatsoever, you are not popular,
you do not like to gossip, and you are too quiet and withdrawn.
[Answer, with heavy irony:] I am surprised you do not put me in jail
for this! How kind you are! As to myself, I am so old fashioned and such
a philosopher as to believe that one heaven is common to all.
Counterposition (ch. 9): We are all made in the image of God, we all
partake in the old Adam, and we have all been created anew through the
sufferings of Christ.
Amplification [based on a series of biblical examples showing how
people outwardly simple and humble have occasionally achieved great
glory through some special gift or in special circumstances] (ch. 10).
Objection (ch. 11): But how can you be our spokesman when you are
a stranger and a foreigner?
[Answer:] What of the apostles? Were they not strangers to the many
nations and cities where they went?
Quality (ch. 12): Everyone that is of high mind has one country, the
Heavenly Jerusalem, in which we store up our citizenship. In that
75. Trans. Browne and Swallow, NPNF 7:330. NB: All subsequent passages from
Gregory’s Oration 33 that are set in quotation marks are from Brown and Swallow’s
translation; the rest are my paraphrases.
country the nobility is measured by the extent to which one has

preserved the divine image and remained faithful to the Archetype.
Intention (ch. 13): It is for these reasons that I, who am small and from
a country without repute, have come upon you, and that not of my own
accord, nor self-sent . . . but because I was invited and compelled and
have followed the scruples of my conscience and the call of the Spirit. I
am not an opportunist; I am not greedy; I obey authorities but without
trying to win their favor.
Common Quality (ch. 14): In any event, these trials are but a fraction
of the spittings and blows that Christ had endured, he for whom and by
whose aid we encounter these dangers. He had met it all with kindness
and gentleness, and so should I too.
Peroration [addressing the actual audience] (ch. 15–18): As I have
often discussed it with you before, these men have the houses, but we the
dweller in the house; they the temples, we the God.
Taking up again some of the charges already discussed, Gregory under-

scores the superiority of the orthodox faith and once again warns his
“beloved sheep” against the various heresies. At this point, however, he
seems to drop the mask of a clever sophist and to show who he really is:
an admirable man of strong faith, deep understanding, and genuine con-
cern for his flock. His mind’s eye is fixed on the ultimate prize, the
salvation of souls. He has no doubts about his faith and is confident that
his “sheep” will listen to his voice. He then adds a confession of faith,
formulated in simple and most direct terms, and ends the speech with a
blessing in the name of “his” beloved Trinity.
In this speech Gregory seems to be juggling and recombining the argu-
ments, examples, and verbal expressions long stored in his memory. The
cross references to other speeches are so numerous here that they seem to
be in almost every paragraph. A relatively short speech (394 lines of
Greek text) contains references, verbal or material, to no less than twenty-
five other speeches! Some of these twenty-five speeches, according to the
traditional chronology, had been written at the beginning of Gregory’s
ecclesiastical career and some at the very end of it. Suffice it to mention
just two examples: Oration 2, Apology for His Flight (362 c.e.); and
Oration 43, Funeral for the Great Basil (381 c.e.).76 Assuming that Ora-
76. The chronology of Gregory’s writings has been a matter of extensive scholarly
debate; for convenience we are using the dates provided by Ruether, Gregory of
Nazianzus, 178.
tion 33 was written in the year 379, one cannot help but wonder why an
author of such outstanding intelligence and creative power would choose
to repeat himself with regularity, and over such a long period of time.77
Moreover, the speech has many of the formal characteristics of a decla-
mation. The tone that prevails in it tends to be “hectic, hectoring, and
melodramatic,” as posited by Winterbottom. The language is not particu-
larly “strong,” but the author threatens that he will use stronger lan-
guage—a typical mannerism of a seasoned declaimer. The legal terminol-
ogy, appearing in isolated clusters, stands out as some kind of a seal of
authenticity. Clever sententiae are to be found at the conclusion of every
section. The underlying structure of the speech, the scaffolding as it were,
is clearly visible—another characteristic mark of a declamation.
The representation of reality in the speech is rather dubious, and the
cast of characters is conventional. The speaker is an honest, upright, and
steadfast character, while his opponents are wily, cruel, and misguided in
their opinions. But there is more. The speaker seems to be wearing two
different hats: in the first part of the speech, he argues with his enemies, at
times quite bluntly; while in the second, he speaks of his own ideals and
gives advice to his flock in a loving, fatherly way. The speaker’s persona is
markedly different in these two parts.
Clearly, this is a matter of the oratorical stance assumed by the speaker.78
The author/orator starts out aggressively attacking either some ill-defined
enemies or even his own people on account of their transgressions and
thoughtless behavior; then after roughly two thirds of the speech, he
suddenly changes the tone and his assumed personality. From a fairly
aggressive and sarcastic opponent he turns into a kind and loving adviser,
genuinely interested in the spiritual well-being of his listeners—just as
77. A small, but perhaps telling, example is the expression “the measurers of the
Godhead” (metre\tai tes theote\tos), and “measuring out the Godhead into portions”
(metrountes te\n theote\ta), with which Gregory designates the followers of Arius who
assigned different levels of Godhead to the three persons of the Trinity; the expression
appears in Orations 3.6, 33.1, and 43.30. Why indeed would a man of such verbal
agility as Gregory want to use the same bon mot in speeches written decades apart?
I would rather believe that all these speeches were written during the same period of
intense creative activity, namely, in his retirement.
78. F. W. Norris, “The Theologian and Technical Rhetoric. Gregory of Nazianzus
and Hermogenes of Tarsus,” in Nova & Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas
Patrick Halton, ed. J. Petruccione (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 1998), 84–95. In this article Norris argues that in Oration 33 Gregory speaks
first from the standpoint of the prosecution and then later as an attorney for the
defense.
Aristides had done in his Oration 33.79 This was probably not by coinci-
dence. Both Aristides and Gregory shared a profound admiration for
Plato and apparently looked at The Apology of Socrates as the ultimate
model for the literary genre of apology.80
Although, as already stated, many researchers consider this speech to
be somehow different, I see many similarities between it and another
apology, namely, Oration 36, On Himself and to Those Who Claim That
It Was He Who Wanted the See of Constantinople.81 The accepted date of
Oration 36 is late in the year 380, soon after the momentous and dra-
matic events of the installation of Gregory as bishop of Constantinople by
the emperor Theodosius himself.82 Therefore, it is assumed, the speech
must have been delivered in the Basilica of the Apostles, before a crowd of
enthusiastic supporters—and skeptical opponents—eager to hear the words
of wisdom from the new, officially sanctioned church leader.
If this indeed was the situation in which Oration 36 was delivered, then
it must have been rather disappointing for many. For the speech is rather
flat, anticlimactic, and in comparison with other speeches offers no new
thoughts or insights. There is not a single allusion in it to the symbolic
importance and solemnity of the moment nor to the beautiful surround-
ings and the magnificence of the building. Not a single mention of the
loving-kindness of God. Not a single address to a real audience in perora-
tion, but rather a series of trite common topoi. No vision for the future,
just another defense against those who do not approve of his speaking
style and accuse him of greed and unseemly ambition. Is that the best
Gregory could do in those circumstances?
I do not believe so. I do not see this as Gregory’s “crowning speech,” as
it has been dubbed in modern literature.83 Rather I read it as a declama-
79. Whether Gregory took this feature from Aristides or from his general studies of
rhetoric, one cannot say; however, the following statement from Oration 29, The
Third Theological—On the Son, shows that Gregory was not acting in “conditioned
response” to the training he had received, but was using this feature purposefully:
“Every speech has two parts to it; one part aims at establishing one’s own position,
the other refutes the opposing case. This is the method we shall try” (ch. 1) (see
Norris, Faith Gives Fullness, 245).
80. Ancient literary critics were aware of the composite nature of Plato’s Apology.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus read it as “not only a defense in court, but as an attack on
the accusers and an encomium of, and exhortation to, philosophy.” See D. Russell,
“The Panegyrists and Their Teachers,” in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of
Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. M. Whitby (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 17–49.
81. Gk. text: C. Moreschini, SC 318:240–69; Eng. trans. in Vinson, FC 107:220–29.
82. Events described by Gregory in the poem Concerning His Own Life, lines
1325–95 (trans. Meehan, FC 75:114).
83. Moreschini, SC 318, Introduction, 46.
tion that starts out as an answer to the question coming, as it were, from
the audience: Why don’t you speak to us more often? You are good and
wise, and we do love your speeches so! But then, in the second half, the
speech turns into an apology for the position Gregory was called on to
assume in Constantinople.
The length is right for an improvised speech: 292 lines of Greek text.
There is no presentation of facts, but the argumentation starts right away.
The allusions to pagan authors, especially Plato, outnumber the biblical
quotes. References to some sixteen other speeches appear in the form of
borrowed expressions, phrases, and quotes; the most often quoted is Ora-
tion 33—another declamation, as shown above. Past events are shown in a
telescoping fashion: there is the emperor Julian in the speech, but also
problems and accusations that transpired only during the council of 381 c.e.
The composition is highly articulated: every section is set off with elaborate
verbal correspondences and contains a prominent biblical quote near the
end; at the end of every section Gregory asserts himself with just a few
words spoken in the first person. The overall issue is (a modified) counterplea.
In sum, there is no doubt in my mind that Oration 36 is a typical
Gregorian declamation. And this type of speech, I believe, did not have a
strictly liturgical role: the circumstances of delivery were different, and I
will try to explain a little later what I believe they were.
5. THE SPONSOR OF THE LOVING-KINDNESS OF GOD

It is interesting to note that although Gregory’s forty-five speeches were
presumably composed over a period of at least twenty years, there is no
noticeable character development in them. The speaker may be adopting
different rhetorical stances, but his main concerns remain the same from
beginning to end:
• The disorder in the church whereby one can become a bishop
without any education and without following the proper
hierarchical order;
• The need for the solid (read: classical) education of church
personnel, and the unfortunate attempts of Julian the Apostate to
isolate the Christians and keep them away from the common
Greek cultural and literary heritage;
• The lack of unity, the rivalries, and the constant wrangling among
the orthodox, as well as the ongoing struggle with heresy;
• Gregory’s own lifelong love and appreciation of letters;
• His overwhelming desire for the desert, that is, a life of sustained
prayer and contemplation;
• His acute sense of not having been understood and appreciated,

even having been actively injured and tyrannized over by his
closest friends and relatives;
• And, above all else, his uncompromising sense of duty in
proclaiming the right doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of the
Holy Spirit and the ultimate deification of human beings (theon
genesthai).
Not being a student of theology myself, I hesitate to speak of Gregory’s
Trinitarian doctrine. However, if these speeches belong to a period of
twenty years, one would expect to see at least some trace of a developing
thought, of hesitancy perhaps in expressing ideas of such theological
import. But there is none that I can see. When ordained a priest, Gregory
was a young man of thirty. Could he have made up his theological mind
that early and never changed or modified it in the next twenty years? Even
if we assume that Gregory and Basil had had plenty of time to discuss
these matters beforehand while studying in Athens and had come to an
agreement as to the general strategy they were to follow in their respective
careers,84 it is still surprising not to see in Gregory’s opus any traces of a
work in progress or of a gradual increase in the freedom with which he
was asserting the true teaching on the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Gregory, as is well known, was named “the Theologian” by subsequent
generations; as indicated above, he liked to refer to himself as the “spon-
sor of the loving-kindness of God.” The Theologian seems to indicate
that God/Trinity was first and foremost on Gregory’s mind and in his
preaching; the name he chose for himself suggests that the emphasis of his
teaching was on God’s providential love and benevolence, and not so
much on God’s anger and vengefulness.85
84. In Oration 43, Funeral for the Great Basil, ch. 69, Gregory related an incident
“thus far unknown to most men” that had happened during the persecutions under
the emperor Valens. In a private conversation, Basil had sworn to Gregory that he
believed that the Holy Spirit was God, but had said that he was reluctant to say it in
public because he wanted to avoid more controversy within the church; Gregory on
the other hand, Basil had said, should feel free to speak openly on that matter, since
“no one was likely to drag him from his obscurity to trial or banishment.” On the
other hand, in Oration 41, On Pentecost, ch. 6, Gregory claims that he himself had
felt obliged up to that point (379 c.e.?) to be discreet on the subject of the Holy Spirit,
on account of those who “did not have the strength to receive the full teaching.”
Nevertheless, in several of his earlier orations (e.g., Orations 12.6 and 13.4, both
from 372 c.e.) Gregory did speak most directly of the Holy Spirit as God.
85. In the poem Concerning His Own Life, Gregory says: “I was gentle and suave
in my preaching, regarding myself as a proponent of a doctrine that is sympathetic
and mild and smites no one” (carm. 2.1.11.1201–5; trans. Meehan, FC 75:110). This
The speeches discussed so far, those apologies with their more or less
vicious attacks on the audience, do not readily fit with the image Gregory
wanted for himself. Another speech in the collection, however, tells us
more about the true nature of the “sponsor of the loving-kindness of
God.” I refer to Oration 14, On Love for the Poor.86 It too has proven to
be rather puzzling to modern scholars. Various dates and places of deliv-
ery have been suggested—such as 365 c.e., 368 c.e., or 373 c.e. in
Caesarea or in Nazianzus—but no consensus has been reached.87 The
question of the intended audience has been equally perplexing. J. Bernardi
has come to the conclusion that the audience in this speech remains
somehow “faceless” and that the speaker has failed to assume that tone
of personal involvement so characteristic of his other speeches, where he
would create a “powerful emotional bond between himself and the audi-
ence.”88
But these difficulties of interpretation are easily dealt with once the
questions of the literary genre and the appropriate level of style are
answered correctly. Oration 14 is a deliberative speech, not forensic, and
therefore composed in a different level of style. In the fourth-century
rhetorical theory, the three levels of style (tria genera rhetorices) (the
plain, the middle, and the grand) correspond to the three duties of the
orator (to teach, to give pleasure, and to sway the mind), which in turn
correspond to the three branches of oratory (the deliberative, the panegy-
rical, and the forensic).
In practice, the levels of style differ chiefly in sentence structure. The
plain style relies on regular, well-rounded periods, composed of moder-
ately and equally sized cola. This type of sentence structure conveys the
idea of a calm, rational, and dispassionate inquiry, which is most suitable
for deliberative oratory. The grand style, on the other hand, the one used
in forensic oratory, with its short, disjointed sentences, irregular periods,
exclamations, and direct addresses to the audience, gives the impression
sentiment may be echoed in the apolytikion (tone 1) sung to this day on the feast day
of St. Gregory the Theologian (Jan. 25), which states: “The pastoral flute of your
theology conquered the trumpets of orators. . . .”
86. Gk. text: PG 35:857–910; also (with It. trans.) in Moreschini, Tutte le orazioni,
332–73. Eng. trans. in Vinson, FC 107:39–71.
87. In ch. 8 Gregory speaks of his “much-suffering flesh and weakness of the
body.” This might be an indication that he indeed was an old man when he composed
this speech. It is also of interest that the speech contains a number of references to
both Oration 2, In Defense of His Flight to Pontus, and Oration 43, Funeral for the
Great Basil—two speeches believed to have been written at widely different times.
88. Bernardi, Prédication, 106.
of a personal emotional involvement of the speaker, which presumably is

conducive to swaying the minds of a jury in a trial.89 Therefore, we should
not be surprised by the lack of personal involvement by the speaker in a
deliberative speech. A deliberative speaker is presumed to teach his audi-
ence, therefore he is free to assume a didactic and authoritative stance and
keep a certain distance between himself and the audience.
From Hermogenes we learn that the nature of deliberative oratory,
which he calls practical issue (pragmatike\ stasis), involves the evaluation
of future acts and is usually organized around the heads of purpose (telika
kephalaia), such as legality, justice, advantage/necessity, feasibility, honor,
and consequence.90 Importantly, however, Hermogenes warns that “art
shows the method of division, but art must be adapted to the nature of the
facts as opportunity allows.” As the analysis of the speech will show,
Gregory’s argumentation follows fairly closely the prescribed pattern, but
with some variations.
Gregory’s Oration 14 may be divided into two halves of almost identi-
cal length. In the first half Gregory prepares the ground, so to speak, by
describing the desperate situation of the poor, the sick, and the downtrod-
den in such a way as to make it abundantly clear that it is wrong and
unacceptable. In the second half he tells the listeners directly what they
must do to rectify the situation. Both parts are based on the heads of
purpose, but in a mirrorlike fashion. For instance, while in the first part
Gregory shows the reverse of justice, that is, all the injustices committed
against the poor, in the second he states in a positive way what the
requirements of justice are. Thus, in the course of the speech, which is
rather long, he actually goes down the heads of purpose list twice.
Part 1
Proem (ch. 1): A very elaborate (in terms of verbal expression) address to
his “brothers and fellow paupers,” asking them to pray for the speaker
that he may feed their souls with word, and break the spiritual bread for
them who are hungry for salvation.91
89. The middle style, with which we are not concerned here, was reserved for
epideictic oratory (see n. 15 sbove).
90. Heath, On Issues, 52, 129.
91. Trans. Vinson, FC 107:39. The “brothers and fellow paupers” are probably
monks, judging by what follows; namely, a list of specifically monastic virtues. NB:
Except for this direct address, the rest of the speech is my paraphrase, including some
of my own translations (the passages set in quotation marks).
On virtues (ch. 2–5): It is not easy to determine which one of the

virtues is the most precious. Faith, hope, and love are good, but so are
hospitality, fraternal love, kindness to all, patience, mild manners,
eagerness in faith, undernourishment of body, prayer and vigils, purity
and virginity, continence, peace and solitude, self-sufficiency, humility,
poverty and disdain for riches, life of contemplation, and life of action
(theo\ria kai praxis). [For each one of these, a biblical example is given.]
One virtue, however, surpasses them all: the love for the poor
(philopto\chia).92
The ills of human life (ch. 6): We (Christians) are told to open our
hearts to all who suffer for whatever reason—this is a commandment
(entole\: the issue of legality). The forms of human suffering are many:
being orphaned or widowed, being a stranger in a foreign land, suffering
under a harsh ruler or at the hands of tax collectors and thieves, having
one’s property confiscated, and being shipwrecked. The worst of all,
however, is to be affected by the “sacred illness” (i.e., leprosy).
Digression [on the paradoxical nature of the human body] (ch. 7–8):
My body is an enemy that I struggle to subjugate, and yet it is also an
indispensable ally without whom I may never succeed in ascending to
God.
On leprosy (ch. 9–13): Others may be poor too, but they can always
hope for some improvement, for they at least have their health; the
lepers, on the other hand, have lost their health, lost the opportunity to
earn a living for themselves, and on top of everything else, people are
afraid even to get close to them. [An amplificatory description (ekphrasis)
of the lepers’ situation follows.] When these poor wretches are rejected
by their fathers, and even by their mothers, this is clearly against nature
(ch. 11). When they are treated worse than adulterers and temple
robbers, when the life of crime is less painful and dangerous than the life
of illness, clearly justice has been perverted and reversed.
Our Christian duty (ch. 14–15): Yet these poor wretches are our
brothers . . . co-sharers in the very same nature . . . recipients of the same
revelations and commands . . . co-heirs of the life to come, for whom, as
for ourselves, Christ was crucified so that we may all die with him and be
raised with him. To despise the lepers would be against the teachings of
the good shepherd Christ; against human nature itself, “which legislates
92. St. Basil makes a distinction between the “poor” in the material sense, whom
he calls pene\tes, and the “down-on-their-luck” (pto\choi). See PG 31:1259.
fellowship and sympathy, having learned from its own weakness the
need for reverence and loving-kindness.”
(ch. 16–17) Is it truly necessary that we live in utmost luxury . . . while
they are deprived of everything? Is it not shameful that we be dressed in
silk and finest linen . . . while they can hardly cover their bodies with
ripped and worn out hair-shirts? Do we have to live in most ornate
mansions . . . while they lie in front of our doors naked, voiceless, having
lost most of their limbs and almost dead before death?
(ch. 18–20) Alas, brothers, we are sicker than they are, for theirs is the
sickness of the body, ours of the soul. Let us all help nature, while there is
still time! Let us remember that human affairs are unstable . . . that the
wheel of fortune is forever turning. It is to our advantage not to put our
trust in the things of this world . . . but store the riches in heaven. Let no
one glory in his wisdom, fame, power, health, beauty, youth—these things
are all perishable. What truly matters is the recognition and search of God,
and helping the poor: these two only will earn us some good in the future.
Objection (ch. 21–23): But who is so wise as to understand this? Is it
possible to disregard the present and live exclusively for the future? Who
can tell the letter from the truth, flesh from soul, darkness from light, the
shadow of death from the life eternal?
[Answer:] Difficult, indeed, is it to see clearly into all of that.
Remember, therefore, where your very being comes from, your breath,
your mind, your knowledge of God, your hope for the heavenly
kingdom. Remember that you are a son of God, co-heir with Christ
and—if I may say so—God yourself (theon genesthai). Who gave you all
that, and from where? Who let you see the beauty of the sky, of the sun,
the moon and the stars . . . and of everything else in this beautifully
ordered world? [an ekphrasis of the creation follows.]
Part 2
Counterposition [that is, what one should do in this situation] (ch. 24):
Not so, brothers and friends, not so; but let us be good stewards of what
was so generously given to us!
(ch. 25–26) Let us imitate that first and highest law of God, for all this
beauty and abundance has been created for the benefit of all. But the
greed of some men has led to war and tyranny, wealth and poverty,
freedom and slavery, and all the rest that comes with sin and spreads like
illness upon humankind. It was not like that at the beginning . . . but he
who created human beings created them free and richly provided for in
paradise. However, sin has crept in and might has become right.
Nevertheless, you should imitate the original equality, not the secondary
divisions. . . . you should help everyone in any kind of distress . . . imitate
God’s benevolence . . . and be grateful that you are in the position to help
others, and are not in need of others’ help.
(ch. 27) Nothing in humanity is more divine that the ability to help
others. Do whatever is in your power to help the long-suffering lepers.
Do not be afraid of the illness, you will not contract it. . . . the doctors
and their own relatives guarantee it. You are responsible for the poor, do
not try to deny it. . . . otherwise, I will put you to shame with my words.
Importance/Relative importance (ch. 28): Remember always that
whoever sails is close to being shipwrecked. While you are sailing under
favorable winds, extend your hand to those shipwrecked. Do not wait to
learn by experience how awful is the lack of human sympathy. The law
enjoins that we should help even animals when they are in trouble; how
much more should we help those who are our kin and deserve the same
respect as ourselves!
(ch. 29–32) Not only the law, but reason (read: faith) itself tells us that
to give is more blessed than to receive. Yet there are some clever ones
who dare raise their voices and claim that “the suffering of those
wretches is from God, as is our prosperity.” May they all suffer sickness,
hardship, and bad luck! Who can properly tell whether this one is
suffering because of his crimes and that one doing well on account of his
goodness, or the other way around, that this one is being raised because
of his wickedness and that one is being tested for his virtue? Besides, no
one is wholly without sin, that much is clear. Although I cannot say that
I understand all that is in the divine scripture . . . all that I can tell is that
the rewards of virtue and the punishment of wickedness will happen in
the life to come. . . . and that this life and world are run and ordered
according to some principles that are known to God alone. Why, some
go as far as to accuse providence itself for the existence of poverty—as if
God would get tired if he were to help more people (adunaton)! O
abysmal ignorance!
(ch. 33–35) As for ourselves, let us stick to reason . . . and confirm that
God is creator and adjustor of everything . . . and that providence keeps
the world together . . . and that the Creator, or the Modeler if you prefer
(eite poie\te\n eite plaste\n), is in charge of our affairs . . . and that if things
go badly for us, for that very reason we should even more admire the
supreme intelligence.
Besides, kindness and love for the poor are necessary for another
reason: I see it mandated over and over again throughout scripture in no

uncertain terms and with utmost insistence . . . for instance where it says:
“Arise, Lord, set your hand to the task; God, do not forget the afflicted”
(Ps 10.12).
Objection (ch. 36): But surely that applies to those who are poor and
suffering on account of some injustice!
[Answer:] I do not deny it, but that is only one more reason to help
them. . . . There is no doubt that helping the unfortunate shows respect
to the Creator, for he did not create them rich and poor; those are just
the external circumstances; he had created them equal.
(ch. 37–38) Remembering that sins are cleared away through pity and
faith, it is to our advantage to show pity to the downtrodden. And if you
are perchance totally free from sin, remember that to be kind and
benevolent to others is to show respect for Christ himself. Therefore, do
not delay doing good; if you act promptly, your mercy will bring a
double return; above all, do not do it grudgingly, but with a happy and
joyous heart.
Peroration (ch. 39–40): One last time Gregory reminds “the servants
of Christ, brothers and co-heirs,” that mercy is a question of honor, law,
and necessity, not of choice. He urges everyone, including himself, to
“visit with Christ, nurse Christ in illness, feed Christ, clothe Christ, bring
together Christ, honor Christ”—in a word, to spend one’s whole life
with the poor, so that when the time comes “we may all be received in
the eternal tabernacle [eis tas aio\nious ske\nas], in Christ our Lord, to
whom be the glory into the ages. Amen.”
The speech is far too long and repetitive, no doubt, but nevertheless
worthy of a theologian and a sponsor of the loving-kindness of God. A
fourth-century text telling us with emphasis that all human beings have
been created equal, that they share the same needs and aspirations, and
that they have equal rights to life and happiness ought to lift up our hearts
as any other similar text from any other century. Gregory shows himself
in this speech as a man of great understanding and compassion, a man
truly worthy of the reputation that he has always enjoyed.
6. TO HONOR CHRIST, HIS MARTYRS, AND SAINTS:

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN PANE| G URIS
Having identified the presence of rhetorical, specifically forensic, ele-

ments in several of Gregory’s speeches,93 I would like to try to answer the
following questions concerning Gregory’s oratory in general:
• If some, even most, of his speeches were not church sermons,
homilies in the strictest sense, what were they? To assume that they
were mere rhetorical exercises or instructional tools would not do
them justice. For although somewhat uneven in their quality, these
texts occasionally rise to the level of great literature.
• What would have been the purpose of such speeches or similar
ones in the overall context of pagan oratory? Could a comparison
with a successful pagan orator, in terms of his typical duties and
activities, be of any use in understanding the scope of Gregory’s
oratory?
• Finally, what function, except that of a Sunday preacher, could a
highly accomplished orator play in the context of early Christian
culture?
In the pagan world, as already stated, a professional orator was a much
sought-after artist whose performances used to attract people from all
walks of life. In other words, he was something like a professional musi-
cian of today. Just as today people go to a concert hall to hear a sophisti-
cated piece of music performed by a virtuoso musician, in those days they
would go to the theater to listen to a famous orator display his rhetorical
skills. However, the subject of his performance/lecture was not of para-
mount importance: the theme would not even be announced in advance.
It could be chosen either by the speaker or by the audience, in which case
the speaker would have to improvise. Also, whether he would be strictly
telling the truth or ad-libbing according to his whim was understood to
be of secondary importance. Above all, he was expected to be a virtuoso
of words and literary composition.
The opportunities for display were many, and a savvy orator would try
to get as much use as possible from any newly composed piece. He could
deliver the same speech more than once, at different times and places; he
could also give any of his “old” speeches as a gift to a friend or to an
official in order to show respect or to curry favor. Aelius Aristides, for
93. These are by no means the only speeches in Gregory’s opus that contain
declamatory elements; the choice was purely subjective.
instance, having delivered his Oration 33 in a public event, had sent the
text of the speech as a parting gift to a friend setting out on a journey.94
A similar practice is mentioned by our Gregory on at least two occa-
sions. One mention can be found in Oration 19, On His Sermons and to
the Tax Adjuster Julian.95 Having delivered the speech publicly to a group
of enthusiastic students, friends, and visitors, Gregory presented it as a
gift to Julian, a longtime friend and former fellow student from Athens.
Also, in Oration 9, Apology to His Father Gregory, in the Presence of
Basil, When He Was Consecrated Bishop of Sasima, Gregory says the
following: “You have us, as you desired, in your hands; you have pre-
vailed over the unconquerable. And lo, along with everything else, you
have my sermon too, which you kept asking for although you already
heard it and which, inadequate though it is, you have continued to shower
with frequent and copious praise.”96 This example I find rather interest-
ing. For although the speech talks with bitterness about the none-to-
subtle pressure that Basil exercised concerning Gregory’s ordination, Ba-
sil apparently was not unduly upset but showered the speech with praise
and asked repeatedly for a written copy of it. In my opinion this is just
another proof that the speech was not “for real” and that the passionate
feelings of acute pain and indignation expressed in it were mainly for
show.
Public declamations, as already mentioned, often included an oratori-
cal contest (ago\n, ago\nizesthai) whereby two orators would declaim on
the same question, but from the opposite points of view. In several of his
speeches, Gregory alludes to that practice.97 For example, at the begin-
ning of Oration 33 Gregory challenges an unspecified opponent to “hold
his horses” and to listen to what he has to say: “Are you again indignant?
94. On another occasion—this was actually in a dream—Aristides brought out a

casket full of his speeches and invited a distinguished friend to choose and take
whichever speech he liked (Behr, Sacred Tales, 213).
95. Vinson, FC 107:95. The structure of Oration 19 is somewhat unusual: the
speech begins as another one of those apologies where the teacher defends himself
against the charge that he does not declaim often enough, but then it turns into a full-
fledged deliberative speech (i.e., one offering moral advice). Gregory’s medieval
commentators noticed this irregularity of composition and after a long debate
concluded that the speech should be classified as deliberative because “that element
prevailed” in it. See C+. Milovanovic;, “Tria genera rhetorices in Nicetas’ Commentary
of Gregory Nazianzenus,” Zbornik radova Vizantolos=kog instituta 20 (1981): 59–73.
96. Gk. text (with It. trans.) in Moreschini, Tutte le orazioni, 300–305. Eng. trans.
in Vinson, FC 107:21–25.
97. This does not include the formal objections that are constituent parts of every
forensic speech.
Do you again arm yourself? Do you again insult us? Restrain your threats
a little while that I may speak. We will not insult you, but we will convict
you; we will not threaten, but we will reproach you; we will not strike,
but we will heal.”98 Similarly, in Oration 9 he turns to his opponent
(presumably Basil) and asks him pointedly: “Do you promise not to hurl
a retort at me?”99 Also, in Oration 23, the so-called Third Oration on
Peace, he pretends that his opponents are present, spoiling for a fight as it
were, and he attacks them viciously—as was customary in forensic dis-
plays: “What? My words are not to your liking? Your tongue is convulsed
and labors to produce a retort? This too we shall witness one day, or
those who have more leisure than we. We shall come to know also your
delightful offspring, or rather their aborted remains, when we hatch
adder’s eggs or crush them with our reason.”100
Another interesting example can be found in Oration 21, On the Great
Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. At one point in the speech, Gregory
invites the whole audience to participate in the contest: “Come then, I
pray, you who have been his admirers and witnesses, divide among your-
selves his excellences, contend bravely with one another [ago\na kalon
ago\nisasthe pros alle\lous], praise him in his fastings and prayers. . . .”101
The invitation, of course, is tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless shows both
the speaker’s and his audience’s familiarity with the framework of ora-
torical display contests.
From Aristides, and Libanius too, we have learned that the atmosphere
in the theater during the performances was not very orderly: the students
would come and go as they pleased; they would talk and create all kinds
of diversions to the point where even those who wanted to listen to the
orator were often unable to do so. In Gregory’s Oration 14, On Love for
the Poor, we find a statement reminiscent of those complaints: “Why lay
out the full measure of their [i.e., the lepers’] tragedy to those in the midst
of celebration? Perhaps I might raise a dirge even among yourselves, if I
were to invoke in tragic detail all their sorrows; then their suffering will
overwhelm your festal spirit. . . .”102 And in another speech, Oration 32,
On Discipline in Theological Discourse, he warns his listeners to “resist
the impetuous impulse to get up and leave before the end of the speech, a
98. Trans. Browne and Swallow, NPNF 7:328.

99. Vinson, FC 107:24.
in Vinson, FC 107:131–34.
in Browne and Swallow, NPNF 7:269–80.
102. Vinson, FC 107:48.
habit of which I disapprove.”103 To me, both of these quotes are evidence

that these speeches were not strictly liturgical sermons—which I assume
would have been listened to with more reverence and restraint—but were
delivered under somewhat different circumstances.
Both Oration 14, On Love for the Poor, and Oration 19, On His
Sermons and to the Tax Adjuster Julian, were delivered, as Gregory
himself points out, during celebrations of some (unspecified) martyrs.
Such celebrations, commonly known as pane\gureis, were a direct con-
tinuation of pagan festivities in honor of gods and heroes, on the one
hand, and of the deified emperors, on the other hand, both of which used
to give a prominent place to public speeches.104 Early Christian sources on
the celebration of martyrs go back to the second (The Martyrdom of
Polycarp) and third centuries (Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus). From the
fourth century, a number of sources testify to the growing importance and
popularity of such events.105 A typical pane\guris would last at least two
days and would apparently offer the opportunity for delivering more than
just one speech.106 Consequently, some of the speeches were given in
church and some in different settings.
Gregory mentions more than once that such-and-such speech was given
on a day of the celebration of martyrs.107 However, nowhere does he say
explicitly that the speech was delivered in the church.108 On the other
103. Gk. text (with It. trans.) in Moreschini, Tutte le orazioni, 780–813. Eng.
trans. in Vinson, FC 107:191–215.
104. S. Vryonis, Jr., “The Pane\gyris of the Byzantine Saint: A Study in the Nature
of a Medieval Institution, Its Origins and Fate,” in The Byzantine Saint, ed. S. Hackel,
University of Birmingham Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies
(London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1981), 196–226. The late-antique
celebrations in honor of the deified emperor are discussed by P. Herz,
“Herrscherverehrung und locale Festkultur im Osten des römishcen Reiches (Kaiser/
Agone),” in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, ed. H. Cancik and
J. Rüpke (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 239–64.
105. J. Leemans, General Introduction, in idem, et al., Let Us Die That We May
Live: Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria (ca.
AD 350–AD 450) (London and New York: Routledge, 2003).
106. Leemans, Let Us Die, 15.
107. Further examples of speeches delivered for celebration of martyrs: Oration
15, In Praise of the Maccabees; Oration 21, On the Great Athanasius; Oration 24, In
Praise of Cyprian; Oration 32, On Discipline in Theological Discourse; Oration 35,
On the Holy Martyrs and against the Arians. In addition, of course, there is a whole
group of major orations delivered around the great feasts of the Christian year, such
as Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, etc.
108. The only speech, to my knowledge, that specifies the church as the place of
delivery is Oration 25, In Praise of Hero the Philosopher, ch. 2. Gk. text (with It. trans.)
in Moreschini, Tutte le orazioni, 598–621. Eng. trans. in Vinson, FC 107:157–74.
hand, he often makes allusions to the festal meals/banquets, which appar-

ently were held after the nightlong vigil, followed by the morning service
on those occasions. “We have not rushed late to the feast and missed the
joyous and spiritually invigorating experience that the rights by which we
honor the martyrs make us feel,” says Gregory in Oration 24, In Praise of
Cyprian.109 Also, he often makes allusions to the fact that he is offering
spiritual food to his guests and listeners, which is no doubt superior to the
mere food for the body.110 Where exactly those meals, and the accompa-
nying speeches, were held is not quite obvious yet.
On at least one occasion, it seems, the speech was actually delivered in
the theater. In Oration 34, On the Holy Lights, Gregory says: “And now,
having purified the theater [to theatron] by what has been said, let us
discourse a little about the festival, and join in celebrating this feast . . .”
(ch. 11).111 Thus, the very same place that in the past had witnessed so
much talk about the “demonic powers” and “perverted morals” has
found itself being hallowed by the words and teachings from the scriptures.
In this context an interesting statement can be found, some hundred
years later, in Basil of Seleucia, the author of The Life and Miracles of
Saint Thecla. In that work—in which, by the way, he freely admits his
own disregard for the Attic purity of language—Basil offers the following
information: the place where speeches are given during the martyrs’ festi-
vals is called “the display-place, that is, the platform, or the auditorium”
(deikte\rion, touto estin ho ambo\n, e\toi to akroate\rion).112 One of those
terms (ambo\n) could possibly refer to church architecture, but the other
two (the “place for display” and the “lecture room”) probably would
not. Also, Basil states clearly that he delivered his speech in praise of
Thecla in the early morning of her feast day. Whether that fact had
anything to do with the later development of the matins (orthros) service
is not known.113 The answer will have to wait until further evidence about
the logistics of the original pane\gureis comes to light.
In general, one can be reasonably sure that it was in the context of the
109. Vinson, FC 107:143.

110. E.g., Oration 11.4; Oration 14.1; etc. In Oration 35, On the Holy Martyrs
and against the Arians, Gregory says: “Here before us are the hosts, and the guests,
and a table well-stocked with good things to eat” (ch. 4) (trans. Vinson, FC 107:219).
111. Trans. Browne and Swallow, NPNF 7:355.
112. Basil Seleuc., De vita S. Theclae 2.27 (PG 85:612–13).
113. V. Somers-Auwers, “Les collections Byzantines de XVI discours de Grégoire
de Nazianze,” ByzZ 95 (2002): 102–35. It is interesting to note that Gregory’s sixteen
so-called liturgical speeches were (probably) selected for the purpose of being read
during the orthros service, according to the oldest extant monastic typika.
pane\gureis that Gregory continued doing what he was rightfully famous

for—namely, using all the resources of the classical tradition to lay down
the foundations of another highly sophisticated Christian oratorical tra-
dition. If this interpretation is correct, Gregory’s whole rhetorical career
should be reconsidered. Apparently, that career did not end with his
ordination to priesthood. In his old age, in retirement from public life, he
continued where he had left off in his early thirties after the return from
Athens. His audiences might have been somewhat reduced in numbers,
but his “trade” remained the same: the teaching and new application of
centuries-old tradition of display oratory.
In conclusion, let me restate briefly my position. I believe that many of
Gregory’s orations are semi-fictitious speeches of a forensic and delibera-
tive kind. As such, they follow the well-established tradition of Greek
declamation and are closely related to the procedures of Aelius Aristides,
who in turn was looking back toward Plato as a literary model. Also, I
assume that most of those speeches were actually composed in Gregory’s
old age, possibly as a way of celebrating the memory of martyrs, while at
the same time instructing his young followers in all the subtleties of
ancient Greek oratory.
Thus, let us leave Gregory in his “desert and retreat,” surrounded by
his young disciples/monks, trying to make sense of his past history and
revisiting in his mind the ancient Sophistopolis in which he had dwelt for
so many years in his youth and looking there for formal models into
which he might channel the outpourings of his considerable creativity.114
C+elica Milovanovic; is Associate Professor of Classics at Millersville

University, Millersville, Pennsylvania
114. I imagine Gregory as that old man from W. B. Yeats’s famous poem “Sailing
to Byzantium,” who amid signs of inevitable physical decay looks to the brilliant,
forever flowing waters of human intellectual activity as a unique guarantor of eternity
(in W. B. Yeats, The Tower [London: Macmillan & Co., 1928], 1).

Milovanovic C., Sailing To Sophistopolis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Milovanovic C., Sailing To Sophistopolis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sailing to Sophistopolis: Gregory of Nazianzus and Greek

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

For additional information about this article

Declamation, as a fictitious speech on a popular stock theme, was developed

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it aims to demonstrate the

1. S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire

4. E.g., Seneca, Tacitus, Ps.-Longinus (all conveniently collected in D. A. Russell

6. A good glimpse at the activities of a professional orator can be gained

of absurdity.8 The legal underpinnings of at least some declamations

composition, nevertheless shows some distinctive features. For instance,

15. As demonstrated elsewhere, the short, disjointed sentences were characteristic

sonal inclination to theatrical display” (ouk eikhomen theatriko\s oude

26. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, 156.

event, Gregory’s immense popularity and subsequent influence in Byzan-

2. ARISTIDES, LIBANIUS, HIMERIUS, CHORICIUS,

death.” On the other hand, J. Bernardi, La prédication des pères cappadociens: Le

Analysis/Summary Outline of Aristides, Oration 33

39. Hermogenes says: “Quality is based on the concomitants of person: if the

time to oratory, except in periods of poor health; and if I have always

40. “All dressed in red” is my interpretation; the meaning of the passage is

The speech ends with an allusion—of questionable taste—to the mytho-

Aristides lived in the second century, Libanius in the fourth: Can we be

48. Gk. text: A. Colonna, Himerii declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum

and finally, he made a statement that if he were to “compete” there and

3. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS AND HIS FICKLE FLOCK

of Aristides’ speech and used it as a model, then, Wyss concluded, his

Gregory’s Oration 3 is a very short speech, only ninety-six lines of

Analysis/Summary Outline of Gregory, Oration 3

What this analysis shows is that Gregory’s Oration 3 is a free—perhaps

60. Gk. text: PG 35:857–909; also in C. Moreschini, ed., Gregorio di Nazianzo:

Oration 16, as is commonly believed, was delivered in the year 372/3,

To understand the real nature of this speech, however, we should first

63. Bernardi, Prédication, 118.

Gregory’s speeches comes readily to mind: Oration 19, On His Sermons

4. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS AND

Analysis/Summary Outline of Gregory, Oration 33

country the nobility is measured by the extent to which one has

Taking up again some of the charges already discussed, Gregory under-

5. THE SPONSOR OF THE LOVING-KINDNESS OF GOD

• His acute sense of not having been understood and appreciated,

of a personal emotional involvement of the speaker, which presumably is

Analysis/Summary Outline of Gregory, Oration 14

On virtues (ch. 2–5): It is not easy to determine which one of the

reason: I see it mandated over and over again throughout scripture in no

6. TO HONOR CHRIST, HIS MARTYRS, AND SAINTS:

Having identified the presence of rhetorical, specifically forensic, ele-

94. On another occasion—this was actually in a dream—Aristides brought out a

98. Trans. Browne and Swallow, NPNF 7:328.

habit of which I disapprove.”103 To me, both of these quotes are evidence

hand, he often makes allusions to the festal meals/banquets, which appar-

109. Vinson, FC 107:143.

pane\gureis that Gregory continued doing what he was rightfully famous

C+elica Milovanovic; is Associate Professor of Classics at Millersville

You might also like