§ 74. Eunapius tells us of an interesting dispute of this kind for the
office of Sophist (the highest literary post at Athens) on the death of
Julianus, 340 A.D., and its consequent vacation. Six candidates--four
of them pupils of Julianus, and two other needy persons--were selected
by common consent; the Roman proconsul was president of the electing
court, and so violent was the canvassing that he was obliged to
interfere and order people out of Athens. The candidates handed in
essays and made set speeches. There were _claqueurs_ ready with their
prepared applause. Then the proconsul again cited them, and gave them
a theme for an extempore speech. Five refused, saying they were not
accustomed to pour out, but to think out, their orations. Prohæresius,
a pupil of Julianus, alone took up the challenge, and, all applause
being interdicted, maintained his reputation splendidly. Nevertheless,
he did not then obtain the chair; for his opponents secured influential
electors with dinners and presents, and, no doubt, the social talents
of a Sophist in this chair were very important. They took shameful ways
of succeeding; “but, indeed,” says Eunapius, “you can hardly blame them
for working their case as best they could.”
This interesting story belongs to later days, when the chairs of
philosophy and rhetoric at Athens came under State support and
control. In early days, up to the Christian era, the schools were
perfectly private, free, and independent of the State. We hear, indeed,
of such decrees as that of the Thirty Tyrants forbidding rhetoric
and philosophy to be taught. But though any ancient state, even a
free democracy, would have thought itself quite justified in such
interference for public reasons, there is no definite attempt at such a
policy till the days of Theophrastus, when (about 316 B.C.) Sophocles,
son of Amphicleides of Sunium, passed a law that no one should open a
school of philosophy without the approval of the senate and people.
There was a formal exodus of philosophic students, who only returned
with Theophrastus, when Sophocles was convicted under the _law against
illegal procedure_ (γραφὴ παρανόμων), and his law repealed. This
attempt of Sophocles might have been defended from Plato’s “Republic”
and “Laws,” where the philosopher distinctly recommends State control
of education. But it was, no doubt, the antidemocratic tone of the
schools, especially of the Platonic school, which prompted this action,
for we hear that Demosthenes’ nephew, Demochares, and other democratic
leaders, supported Sophocles, on the special ground that Plato’s school
had supplied most of the later tyrants to Greece.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account