ABSTRACT
We can best form an impression of Philostratus’ central interests and the problems of presenting them if we join one of his sophists in action at an actual performance. We are fortunate in having an eye-witness account by the Younger Pliny of the impact of the sophist Isaeus on a Roman audience:
Isaeus’ great fame had come before him, but he turned out even better. He exhibits the highest degree of virtuosity, fluency and variety. He always speaks extempore, but gives the impression of having spent a long time drafting his material. He lectures in Greek, or Attic I should say. His preambles are polished, suave and pleasant to listen to, but on occasion he can also be serious and impressive. He asks for quite a number of controversia-subjects and allows his audience to make the choice, often even of the side to be argued. He stands up, puts on his gown, and begins. At once everything is almost equally at his fingertips, the less obvious lines of argument keep coming at him, and he expresses himself quite amazingly in mots justes and neat turns of phrase, so that all his reading and writing is dazzlingly clear in the pressures of the moment. His opening remarks are to the point, he gives a clear account of the facts, argues powerfully, draws conclusions boldly, and carries off his performance in an elevated style. Indeed it would be hard to decide whether he is best at instructing his audience, giving them pleasure, or exciting their emotions. The enthumemata and syllogisms come thick and fast, carefully elaborated into their final form, no mean feat even in written speeches; and he has an incredible memory, so that he can produce his extempore speeches word perfect afterwards, a facility he has attained by determined practice; for day and night he concentrates on precisely that. (Pliny, Letters II.iii. 1–4)
