Claudia Greco (University of Florence, Italy)

Choricius on Literature: A study of Platonicvocabulary referring to literary creation inChoricius of Gaza670

The Platonic influence on the style and contents of Choricius’ prose has long been recognized and has been well documented by scholars. Furthermore, even a cursory glance at the Teubner edition’s index of loci similes, as limited and incomplete as it is, gives a good sense of Plato’s presence in the corpus. This is not surprising if we consider that Plato was constantly referred to by Choricius’ literary models, too.671 Nonetheless, our author’s selection of lexical material and his conceptual elaboration of cited passages display an extensive knowledge of the dialogues on which he drew, as well as independent reflection on the questions about poetic creativity that Plato discussed, questions that Choricius himself dealt with from the viewpoint of public declamation and the school. Just as has been pointed out with reference to the presence of philosophical themes in John of Gaza, elaborated from a more distinctly literary point of view,672 so too in the case of Choricius a rhetorical standpoint prevails; still, although he is not a philosopher or a theologian, and despite an affected lightness of tone, he in fact shows himself quite aware of the profundity of the texts he handles.

An investigation of Platonic terminology that bears on literary inspiration and creation must therefore take account, first of all, of the evolution of that lexicon in late antiquity and then of the whole of the Gazan’s works and their addressees. It is not accidental that reflections on the dynamics of inspiration, on the talents necessary for literary creation, and on the importance of study are frequent in the Dialexeis,673 the contents of which are generally theoretical and deal with well-defined issues, and in those orations that celebrate individuals of intellectual distinction or are concerned in some way with the school. The declamations pose different problems because of the distinctiveness of their literary genre and would have to be discussed separately. In general, theory is never dissociated from life. We shall review here first the many allusions to theoretical principles found in the Dialexeis, then their concrete literary realization and conceptual foundation in significant passages of the orations.

1. The Dialexeis

Inspiration

A first question in the Chorician concept of literature concerns the nature of inspiration: whether the beauty of artistic creation is in some way infused into the author by the divine, or is rather the product of a technique learned by study and perfected through practice. This is certainly not a new debate, and it has a central place in the Platonic reflection on poetry: the philosopher repeatedly reflects on the nature of poetry and on its usefulness, and especially in the Ion the question of the comparison of and inspiration is taken up,674 with a discussion of knowledge of the various arts. The difficult interpretation of the Platonic conception of poetry in the various phases of the philosopher’s thought has given rise to a range of scholarly positions, which there is no need to review here.⁶⁷⁵ It is clear that the constant point of reference is Homer, seen by Plato as the poet par excellence; the other poets who are compared to him are declared inferior. Among them, in Ion 531a–b and 532b, Hesiod stands out, the other poet traditionally celebrated because he was both inspired and instructed by the Muses.676 What the role of practice and that of inspiration should be is a question that closely engages Choricius, the son of a technical culture and, at the same time, a teacher. It is precisely to the figure of Hesiod, exemplary because apparently contradictory, that the Gazan refers:

Hesiod is drawing here on Theogony 286 – 92 and 410–13. The importance of hard work is affirmed there (cf. Penella 2009, 43, n.27), which contrasts with the sudden transition from shepherd to poet that occurred because of the intervention of the Muses on Helicon, and so without work and without effort.677 This Dialexis is addressed to young men, as the title says, to show that without constant practice (ἄνευ πυκνοτέρας μελέτης) technical abilities are insecure (ἐπισφαλεῖς αἱ τέχναι) and that even famous examples of corruption due to laziness go back to the environment of the school. This is the context to which Choricius adapts the traditional image of Hesiod as poet τεχνίτης, who creates not only through the Muses’ inspiration, but also thanks to the means proper to his own art.⁶⁷⁸ The articulation of this concept is traced back by Koning (2010, 326 – 8), to the influence of Plato: it is starting with Plato that Hesiod is contrasted to Homer, the latter being connected with μανία and therefore the divinely inspired poet par excellence.679 This is at odds with the earlier view of Hesiod (in Pindar and Bacchylides), according to which he was “the prototype of the inspired poet.”680 According to Plato, Homer is able to give pleasure (ψυχαγωγεῖν), to enchant (θέλγειν, κηλεῖν), and thus to deceive the public.⁶⁸¹ It appears that the transformation of Hesiod from inspired poet to poet τεχνίτης, traceable from the fifth century, was heightened by Plato’s introduction of the notion of μανία, applied in the first instance to Homer. In contrast, Hesiod’s inspiration turns out to be more a transmission of knowledge than the fruit of μανία, and it is progressively characterized as bound to moral utility, whereas the pleasure that delights the masses is associated with Homer’s poetry.⁶⁸² In addition to the question of inspiration and the manner of artistic composition, the difference between the two poets also involves content: Homer, who has no knowledge of truth⁶⁸³, delights the public with false myths and deceives them, whereas Hesiod, especially in Works and Days, passes on useful teachings that have been sweetened by the beauty of his verses.⁶⁸⁴ In a word, Homer is the poet of the beautiful, Hesiod the poet of truth. Myth holds a central place in Platonic and Neoplatonic reflection on poetry, on the one hand as an unreliable and misleading account, on the other hand as an essential element of artistic beauty and a necessary intermediary for reaching knowledge of the highest realities. Not even Choricius evades the discussion.

“La nostalgie du mythe”

With these words Pépin (1976, 189–90), defines Maximus of Tyre’s feeling about myths: the primal simplicity of the soul is charmed by the music of the myths, which lead it by the hand to the knowledge of the truth.685 According to the philosopher we are dealing with stories aimed at a soul that still has to grow, just like stories wet-nurses tell to babies:⁶⁸⁶ pleasure is joined to utility. This seems to be the tradition Choricius goes back to; he cites Hesiod as a model of behavior687 (involvement in work) rather than as a model of style in the Alexandrian conception,⁶⁸⁸ and this is consistent with the image, which keeps occurring in rhetorical manuals, of a didactic and sententious poet whose style is terse and unadorned.⁶⁸⁹ Choricius’ adherence to Hesiodic moral utility and truth, in contrast to the vanity of myths, surfaces from remarks made now and again in an almost incidental way. They express the rhetor’s detachment from “fairy tales” (μῦθοι).⁶⁹⁰ For example:

Again with reference to Alexander and his presumed divine origin, Choricius is more explicit in Brumalia Iustiniani:

In the first place, the rhetor affirms that the stories about Alexander’s divine origin are not credible, then he criticizes his implacably bellicose character, which he contrasts to the wisdom of his own contemporaries, who are able also to enjoy peace. This is a case of different values and of a different vision of life, which is directly reflected in the content of the song that is referred to here.691 The reference to the example that follows, reported by Foerster/Richtsteig (1929) in their apparatus, is to Herodotus 2.173 and concerns the customs of the Egyptians. Significantly, Choricius describes the Herodotean as καλή: stories have a beauty, but they cannot be reliable references. The word takes us back to Plato, in whom the verb νουθετέω and its cognates recur very often.692 It acquires even greater relief in light of the traditional description of Herodotus, surely known to Choricius, as “Homer in prose.”693 Herodotus is one of the authors from whom he loves to draw stories, exemplary episodes, or the idea for whole discourses; but he feels free to modify them, both in form and in content, in accordance with the message he intends to convey.⁶⁹⁴ And in fact Homer and Herodotus are often associated in Choricius, and sometimes one is cited in support of the other.⁶⁹⁵

With regard to the question of judging Homer, Choricius, like Plato, takes him as a reference point to describe the activity of poets. Poetry in general has a prominent position in Choricius’ work, both because it was a part of rhetorical formation and also because of its importance in the cultural world of Gaza in the sixth century.696 As for Hesiod, so too for Homer the rhetor raises the problem of inspiration: specifically, he asks, with regard to the orator’s capability in mimesis or his adaptability to various characters, whether the Muses had inspired him or whether he possessed natural talents:

His own preference is to benefit from the intervention of Athena, who can change Odysseus’ appearance.697 To Homer, and to poetry in general, is attributed a special capability of delighting and even of enchanting the listener. Myth is the privileged object of poetry; and when he has to turn to it, he specifies that it is subject matter treated in verse by poets, as in the case of the story about Ares and Aphrodite:

The mythological theme is introduced into the discourse as a “pleasantry” (ἥδυσμά τι), called to mind by its association with the rose. But the usual skepticism about the truth of poetry recurs; it convinces only those who believe in myths (φιλομύθους ἀκροατάς). Then, a little further on, he adds, from a technical point of view:

So if mythology is the common material on which both poets and those who also wish to delight the public in prose draw, Choricius displays a sharp attention to the technical difference between the two types of composition. He seems to have present the definition of the nature of poetry articulated by Gorgias Helen 9 ποίησιν ἅπασαν καὶ νομίζω καὶ λóγον ἔχοντα μέτρον, in which meter is what distinguishes poetry from discourse in prose.698 He often asserts that he is not a poet, recalling Plato Republic 393d.⁶⁹⁹ This is understandable given his rhetorical and scholastic formation as well as the high level of his technical knowledge of literary structures and genres. One notes, however, the difference between his position and that of Gorgias: for Choricius, the point to be noted is not merely the presence of meter, but also the theme; so it is a question of content as well as of form.⁷⁰⁰ With regard to Choricius’ relationship to poetry, one seems to pick up a kind of feeling of inferiority in the face of verse composition, and not only because of lack of adequate technical competency:

This text, full of Platonic references, is also marked by a sense of personal inadequacy vis à vis Homer and Pindar, who were inspired by the Muses and the Sirens: 15.1.6 Choricius has appropriated the traditional distinction between prose, represented as a walk on the ground, and the elevation on high that is typical of poetry. The same contrast is drawn by John of Gaza, with fear and anxiety over his declamatory performance, in the prologue to his cosmological poem (Ekphr. 9–15).701 An example:

One can sing of the divine if taken up on high (μετεωρίζεις), as poets are; but prose must limit itself to treating terrestrial themes (χαμαὶ ἐρχομένων ἀνθρώπων). Thus, after introducing a story about Marsyas, Choricius ends by exhorting the Λóγοι to take a different path:⁷⁰²

Nonetheless, in other passages, one senses the result of a synthesis of the inspiration of the Muses, literary pleasure, and the activity of the rhetor, so that both poet and orator may invoke the other’s tutelary deity. In 11.1.4, with reference to the observation made to the elderly Procopius that he has limited his activities, Choricius emphasizes that he himself is not a poet like Homer and Hesiod, but that he writes ἄνευ μέτρου λóγους and therefore does not have the right, according to common opinion, to invoke the Muses:

The invocation of divinities by someone who is getting ready to face a challenge takes us back to the world of the declamatory performances of Gaza. We might make a direct comparison with John of Gaza Anacreontea 1.12–14, in which Hermes is associated with the Muses.703 But, unlike John, Choricius resolves the difficulty in a strictly rhetorical context, adducing the example of Socrates, who, even though not a poet, still asked for the help of the Muses:704

The fact that Socrates is called ὁ ᾿Aθηναῖος indicates, in my opinion, that the perfect synthesis of art, understood as a combination of inspiration and technique, is found in the great Athenian tradition. Thus Choricius can conclude:

The Homeric exemplum of Nestor as a paradigm of in advanced age, brought in earlier in this Dialexeis, is also applied to Procopius, with quotation of the same Homeric verse (Il. 10.164), in the funeral oration dedicated to him,705 where the sweetness of his eloquence is also recalled.⁷⁰⁶ In fact, it is precisely in the figure of Choricius’ beloved teacher that this synthesis of the loftiness of poetic inspiration and the excellence of oratorical technique takes place, and the decision to recall him in this Dialexis in a prose riddled with poetic references should not surprise us.

Elsewhere, Choricius takes this identification of the inspired poet with the rhetor for granted, as when, on the occasion of his annual discourse,⁷⁰⁷ he maintains that, for those who cultivate the fields of the Muses, the exercise of Λóγοι must know no seasons:

The Hesiodic references to agriculture contribute here to a σύγκρισις of τέχναι: rhetoric is not tied to a season like agriculture, because the Muses’ flow of water is continuous and plentiful. The association of the water of the Muses with Hesiodic poetry is a topos, in contrast to the wine that inebriates, which is associated with Homer’s poetry.708 Choricius seems to understand that he who dedicates himself to λóγοι needs the support both of Homer’s Muse, that is, of the beautiful, and of Hesiod’s Muse, that is, of the useful. The Nile is elsewhere, too, the plentiful river par excellence; but, above all, it is connected to rhetoric through its association with Alexandria and its school, where Gazans (and perhaps also Choricius himself) would commonly complete their education.709 But besides referring the listener to a common experience, this element leads back to an image dear to our author and to Plato: that of the flow of words, of an eloquence that streams forth abundantly and continuously like a river. Its precedent is the famous passage that represents the poet seated on the Muse’s tripod:

Choricius takes up only the Platonic image, fixed by a long tradition, and completely eliminates from it the theme of unawareness of the truth: as we have seen, the insistence on discriminating the beautiful from the true is a recurring motif for him.

The word and the other arts

This last Dialexeis also shows an example of the Chorician habit of establishing comparisons with various τέχναι: he makes use in it of Hesiodic verses to define the difference between a seasonal and a continuous activity, naturally to the advantage of the latter. This inclination leads him to appropriate yet another Platonic image applied to eloquence, that of the “banquet of λóγοι,” e.g., Plato Timaeus 27b τῶν ἑστίασιν, which recurs in various passages.710 See, for example:

The occasion is provided by Justinian’s Brumalia. Choricius uses the metaphor again elsewhere:

The lexicon is clearly Platonic. See Plato’s Republic 579b ψυχὴν ἐν τῇ οὔτε ἔξεστιν οὐδαμóσε, οὔτε θεωρῆσαι , with reference to the tyrant’s desires, and 332c–d ‘Ἡ καλεῖται; ’Ἡ τοῖς τὰ ἡδύσματα, in which the of medicine is linked to the art of cooking. Cooking is compared to medicine and rhetoric in Gorgias 465b–e too: here the issue is the yearning for knowledge.711 At a later time, the iunctura εὐωχία is attested in AP 4.3.5 – 6 (Agath.) λóγων γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ ποικίλων / πολλοὶ προθέντες παμμιγεῖς εὐωχίας. It is also found, in a rhetorical context, in Maximus of Tyre’ Dissertation 22.6, 191.144 Trapp (εὐωχία λóγων) and, in the Christian sphere, in Methodius of Olympus’ Symposium 9.5 (PG 18.192B) and Ps.-Methodius De Symeone et Anna 10 (PG 18.372C).⁷¹² Literary beauty, already defined as ἥδυσμα in 16.2, reappears in this metaphorical sphere.

The occasion of a banquet, furthermore, evokes a relationship of familiarity and sharing, typical of people partaking of the same food or of the nourishment of culture, in which barbarians have no part.713 In contrasting contests of the Persians with those of the Greeks, Choricius observes:

And he concludes:

Myth, which we have seen is the poetic element par excellence, is thus the dish that makes the banquet delicious, that is, the sweetness inspired by the Muses.

But more often recourse is had to other artistic activities, particularly to the figurative arts, through a comparison of painting and poetry and through participation in the discussion of μίμησις.714 Choricius returns in the Dialexeis to a comparison between τέχναι:

The reference, although a brief one, is to the ancient discussion about the truthfulness of a work of art, which, in a celebratory context, takes on an importance that is hardly secondary. Rhetoric is allowed somehow to cloud over the subject treated. The verb ἐπισκιάζειν is not Platonic. In Lysis 207b one reads ἐπηλυγασάμενος, which the commentators cite as corresponding to ἐπισκιάζειν (e.g., Ael. Dion. 8.2: ἠλύγη· σκιά, καὶ παρὰ (Lys. 207b) τὸ καὶ ἐπισκιασάμενος).715 Choricius prefers to resort to a term very often used in a metaphorical sense, both in a philosophical and in a Christian context. Cf., e. g., Philo De mundi opificio 170.8 . So, too, Proclus Theologia Platonica 6.104.2 θέσεις καὶ τῶν διανομὰς οἱ μῦθοι ὑπὸ πολλοῖς παραπετάσμασιν ἐπισκιάζουσι ἀλήθειαν. Of particular interest are the occurrences of the verb in the Neoplatonic sense of covering over intelligible truths with an ἀχλύς: cf. Philo De praemiis et poenis 37.3; De specialibus legibus 3.4.5.716 Apparently Choricius wanted to choose a verb charged with Neoplatonic philosophical meanings instead of staying with his formal model: rhetoric has in itself the possibility of concealing (but not of altering), of spreading a shadow over that which it represents; and thus it is implied that exegetical work will be necessary to dispel the shadow and reach a correct understanding of the contents or, better, reach a clear vision of the object.

Similarly, in the already cited 34, Choricius recalls that Alexander, son of Philip, was immortalized by very many artists. Then he adds:

The reference to comedy is to Aristophanes Nubes 792 and Ranae 892, in dispute with the arguments of the sophists. Against painting and sculpture, arbitrary and not always faithful reproductions, Choricius sets the effort of the rhetor, who must respect the proper proportions of what he is representing. The example of Lysippus, who depicts Alexander, is taken up again, along with others, in 37.3: rhetoric must represent all in their proper dimensions. The choice of the Platonic term ἐπιτήδευμα, adopted by Choricius elsewhere as well,717 expresses at once both one’s occupation and one’s choice of life. Among the numerous Platonic occurrences of the term, two may be cited here: Laws 846d δὸν οὐδεμία τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, and Timaeus 17d καὶ κατὰ φύσιν δóντες τὸ καθ’αὑτὸν ἑκάστῳ ἓν μóνον ἐπιτήδευμα, μίαν τέχνην. Human nature can carry out only one activity, the one to which the Muse urges it on. Thus in Ion 534c–d τοῦτο μóνον οἷóς τε ἕκαστος ποιεῖν καλῶς ἐφ’ὃ ἡ Μοῦσα αὐτὸν ταῦτα δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἐξαιρούμενος τούτων τὸν νοῦν τούτοις χρῆται καὶ τοῖς καὶ τοῖς μάντεσι τοῖς θείοις. One should dedicate oneself only to the artistic form for which one receives inspiration: in this sense, the artist (poet or declamer), as servant of the Muse, has in himself something divine.

Touches of the sacred also characterize the Dialexis that introduces the Laudatio Marciani I:

The textual problems posed by this text have been recently discussed by Corcella,⁷¹⁸ who provides a convincing interpretation of Choricius’ statement, which implies a selection among the Attic cultural tradition: the passage finds its place along the discussion on rhetoric and philosophy from Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus until the late Neoplatonic developments and in its historical context.

Therefore, I believe that these brief theoretical observations should not be regarded as simple technical prescriptions, but that they have deep philosophical reflection behind them, reflection that Choricius is able to associate with Platonic thought both in form, with the selection of an appropriate lexicon, and in content, revisited by the sensibilities of a late ancient man.

Attention to the figurative arts in Choricius has already been amply studied and in a sense has even determined the author’s fortune in modern scholarship, so I do not think that this is the place to dwell on general issues.719 The arts as terms of comparison are a traditional argument in a rhetorical context, and the occurrence of the verb in technical terminology is evidence of this.⁷²⁰ It has been observed⁷²¹ that this insistence on Choricius’ part is not so much to be interpreted as a sign of special interest in the figurative arts in themselves as to be seen as a manner of representing the distinct function of a creator of literary worlds. This is true; and, among other things, the descriptions of works of art in his orations are rather basic and do not seem to betray a technical interest. Choricius turns to the figurative image as a synthesis of the message that he has transmitted by means of the oration, thus giving a visible concreteness to values, ideas, and feelings.722

From what it is possible to reconstruct of Choricius’ literary theory through the Dialexeis, Platonic influence is felt both in his lexicon and in his choice of themes: he excludes the Athenian philosopher’s motif of the μανία that makes the poet unaware of what he is singing, but he retains the concept of divine inspiration, the ideal outcome of which is a felicitous composition of the good and useful and the true, of the Muse of Homer and the Muse of Hesiod. Now we need to confront some important passages from the orations, with the aim of getting hold of the concrete literary and ideological application of these principles.

2. The bishop and the rhetor: in search of a culturalparadigm (Laudatio Marciani 1–2; Oratio funebrisin Procopium)

In his encomiastic orations, Choricius often displays an interest in the cultural formation of those being celebrated, regarding this aspect of their lives as the foundation of both their private and their public personality.723 But for an investigation that aims at collecting and arranging the elements that traditionally make up the portrait of a cultivated person, it is especially the orations in praise of the bishop Marcianus and of the teacher Procopius that are a precious source of information.724 These orations present the whole traditional repertoire of Platonic formulas, some of which deserve attention for the interpretation and elaboration to which they have been subjected. Choricius dedicates two encomia to Marcianus (Orr. 1 and 2 F.-R.) and a funeral oration to his teacher Procopius (Or. 8 F.-R.).

Encomium and pictorial representation

The orations in honor of Marcianus are famous for their descriptions of the splendid churches of Gaza, due to the generosity of the bishop. The first begins precisely with a comparison with the work of painters, from which the honest rhetor keeps his distance:

Choricius’ declamation, inspired by the Muses, seeks instead to offer an image that corresponds to the truth:

The expression μουσικοῖς comes from Plato Republic 601b τὰ τῆς μουσικῆς χρώματα725: although the comparison with painting is introduced here probably because of the ecphrastic nature of the oration, its ethical content is obvious. The inadequacy of a painted image—or, better still, the suffering that its deceptive nature provokes—is also remarked in the funeral oration for Procopius:

Pictures that depict the dead provoke even greater sorrow in those who remain frustrated in failing to be presented with a living figure of their dearly departed.⁷²⁶

Myths and their usefulness

The passage just cited immediately precedes the consolatory theme of philosophy as a medicine for the mind; philosophy is presented, instead of images, as the true remedy for one who has received the nourishment of the Muses:

Although a Christian interpretation is also possible, the focus here seems to be on education: for one who has participated in the banquet of the Λóγοι (θείων γευσάμενος ἀκουσμάτων), it is not time that will be the remedy for sorrow, but the Muse’s teaching or the Λóγοι themselves.727 We are immediately told what their content is: the fortunes of the ancients, that is, myths, from which it is possible to obtain philosophical instruction. The verb is Platonic, and it recurs in Choricius every time a reference has to be made to harvesting the benefits of instruction, in accordance with Ion 534b λέγουσι γὰρ πρὸς οἱ ποιηταὶ ὅτι κρηνῶν αἱ μέλιτται, καὶ αὐτοὶ πετóμενοι. Here the characteristics of inspiration and poetic creation are enunciated: the sweetness of song, which flows as if from a spring, the gardens or meadows of the Muses, and the process of selecting poetic material.

The laudations of both individuals contain a full description of their education, thanks to the biographical element that is a structural part of the encomium. Learning is the outcome of a process of selecting that which is beautiful and useful:

The shrewd discernment of the beautiful from the useful is expressed in Platonic terms, in reference to the study of poetry: the same verb is used by Choricius of his own education under Procopius in Oration 8.1.1 ἐδρεψάμην. Marcianus has achieved, on an ethical and aesthetic level of choice, what Demosthenes accomplished on a stylistic level, choosing and putting together the best of every author, each one individually incomplete and imperfect: Dionysius of Halicarnassus de Demosthene 8: δ’αὐτῶν ὅσα κράτιστα καὶ χρησι ἦν, ἐκλεγóμενος καὶ μίαν ἐκ διάλεκτον ἀπετέλει. The passage, which immediately precedes the already cited one on Proteus, underscores the virtue of the ποικιλία that characterizes a good oration: Proteus’ transformations are compared to those of discourse in Plato Euthydemus 288b: ἀλλ’οὐκ ἐθέλετον ἡμῖν ἡμᾶς, the Proteus who is defined precisely as “an Egyptian sophist.”728 Marcianus’ attitude towards myths is one of good-natured irony (προσμειδιῶν), and it recalls the wariness with which Choricius alludes in his Dialexeis to the affirmations of poets. The metaphor of a beautiful garden, besides recalling the Μουσῶν (cf. Plato Ion 534b), introduces the concepts of the spell produced by beauty (τὰς ὄψεις κηλοῦντι) and of the innocuous pleasantness of myth,⁷²⁹ which nonetheless also has a share of usefulness. It is precisely to this usefulness that Choricius refers in 8.1.35–36, that which leads to a philosophical formation, as is shown by the numerous mythological exempla that follow (37–44). Behind this affirmation, one picks up the Neoplatonic conception of myth as a means to achieve knowledge of the higher realities. We recall Maximus of Tyre’s position along these lines and the allegorical method of Neoplatonic exegesis.730 So, to achieve this end, a correct interpretation is necessary, and this is a task that belongs to the rhetor.731 In a passage of the funeral oration for Procopius, the qualities of the ideal sophist are laid out, the beauty of the declamation that enchants the public and the ability to interpret the most complex texts:

With regard to the use of the verb καταπλήττειν, a technical term in a rhetorical context, one can find a parallel in Plato Phaedrus 234d, where Socrates is “stunned” (ἐκπλαγῆναι) by Lysias’ discourse.732 With regard to interpretative capability, what is said, in terms drawn from the language of initiation, is that it consists of “bringing into the light,” with effort, that which is hidden: that is, it is consistent with the use of the verb ἐπισκιάζειν to indicate the shadow that covers the deep sense of the λóγοι and also with the image of myths as “coverings.” Hard work is necessary and useful because the human soul does not love that which is too easy.⁷³³ The necessary technical competence (σὺν ἀκριβείᾳ) shows the distance from Plato and an affirmation of τέχνη, despite the lexical echoes:

Technical teaching has the character of an initiation, in accordance with an established rhetorical tradition.⁷³⁴

The Muse

Choricius’ Muse is thus a synthesis of all that is beautiful and good: a spell for the soul, which, initiated through the sweetness of the word, receives nourishment, recovers from its ills, and reaches knowledge of the philosophical truths.735 But Choricius is not an abstract thinker, and he applies these considerations to the events of life. The conclusion of the long consolatory section of his funeral oration for Procopius ends with an exhortation to those who have been instructed by the Muse to accept God’s will with courage. This is the point of the example of Harpagus, who endures with strength of mind the murder of his son by Astyages:

Although we are dealing with a motif common even in philosophical circles,736 it seems that the sacredness of the Muse is no more to be understood strictly as a cult,⁷³⁷ but rather as the inspiration that allows one not only to penetrate, through the beauty of sweet fantasies, the ultimate truths and, for a Christian, the will of God, but also to confront those trials imposed on us by life and society and thus to reach a happy state.

Choricius’ debt to Plato is, therefore, immense. Nevertheless, these examples, among the many others, have shown that the selection of a lexical formulary and the adoption of a terminology that had become traditional by then are not a thoughtless formal adherence to a preordained repertoire, but the outcome of reflection and of a dialogue both with his model and with his contemporaries.