Talk:Second Sophistic

I'll expand this pretty soon.--NeroDrusus 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This page provides a wealth of information about the Second Sophisticate and would be helpful to anyone studying or searching for in-depth information about Ancient Greek literature. The site is obviously under construction and needs links to other pages for topics within the information. The main problem with this page is the density of material. The author should break huge paragraphs down into more concise sections of information. In addition, sentences need to be shorter and to the point. Readers need to be able to absorb the information instead of getting lost in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFleming (talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

REVIEW

First of all, I think that this article presents itself very well. It seems to be well written and is up to par with wikipedia standards. Considering that alot of people might have never heard of this topic (I know I havent anyway), I think that you did a good job in the opening paragraph of defining what second sophistic actually is. This article also seems that it would be extremely beneficial to someone that is familiar with the topic. I say this because you provide a tremendous amount of information. You not only provide an introduction of second sophistic, but you also provide their views and corresponding literature. This allows the reader to gain a greater understanding of the topic from various perspectives. One of the most important things that I think you did in relation to this is you provided writers of the second sophistic. I think this is very important for people who are not familiar with the subject. The reader might develop a greater appreciation and interest in the topic if they recognize one of the writers/members. I also think that you did a good job of avoiding any bias. Even though most of the information deals with facts, you still did a good job of not expressing your opinion. This is important in upholding the legitimacy of the information. Although I think you did a good job of breaking the article up into different sections/headings, I think that you maybe could break it down a little further. In addition to what the previous reviewer stated, this information is so dense and overwhelming that it needs to be broken up a little bit. Considering that huge chunks of text might be intimidating for a quick reader (someone that skims the page for information), it would definitely be beneficial to break the lengthy paragraphs down. This is evident under the heading "what is the nature of the sophists." I think it would look more appealing to the reader if the information was broken down into subheadings. In terms of the resources, I think that the amount of information is fairly equivalent to the number of resources used. Considering that this article is still under construction and you will most likely be adding to it, more resources will have to be utilized. Here is another internet resource that gives some additional information about the ideals of people associated with this movement: http://www.livius.org/so-st/sophistic/second_sophistic.html.Skinfan8 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review by Young-Jin "YJ"

This is a very interesting topic, and I think that many would wonder what Second Sophistic is about. First, you did a great job in explaining the definition and significance of Second Sophistic as a start-off in the article. I remembered briefly skimming through it in my Greek history class, but I forgot what it was in detail so it refreshed my memory. In terms of its structure, the layout of the article looks very well-organized and the language used in the article was precise and succinct except for the section under the heading of “What is the Nature of the Sophists?” While reading, I came up with some feedback which I hope it would help you to improve the article when you are finalizing it later.

I. Introduction

In this section, you did a great job in explaining the Greek society of how it was related to actually comprehend the concept of Second Sophistic. It says Ancient Greece is well known for its rich culture, mythology, technology, and intellect which made me interested in reading this lengthy article as well. I have been interested in Ancient Greek society for a long time, so I found it interesting to read this article. It says about the consequences of the Romans’ colonization over Ancient Greece that they followed some of its traditions. It was very interesting that how Romans’ taking over Ancient Greece is related to the Second Sophistic, but in fact, Second Sophistic was greatly influenced by the Ancient Greece.

In this section, you quoted from Philostratus, however you cited incorrectly. It would have been better if you cited by following the standard Wikipedia format rather than following the MLA style. Thus, it would be better to go back and check how to cite the source or quote from the book in Wikipedia.

In terms of structure of the article, you did a great job in listing the names of Roman Empires—Trajan, Hadrian, and etc, however it could have been better and easier for readers to browse those empires if you inserted internal links to them. Overall, I think in terms of contents, this section is replete with useful and striking information to recap the information. Just one thing to note is that make sure you cite sources corresponding to standard Wikipedia style.

II. What is the Nature of the Sophists?

In this section, the contents were full of information that was based on pure facts. You did a great job in explaining Sophism that how it is in fact a revival of higher education of Ancient Greek society and its emphasis on oratory and rhetoric. I think this would work better if you actually divide this section into two big categories—oratory and rhetoric. Due to its principles and characteristics of teachings, you can sub-divide oratory into Asianism, Atticism, and Hellenistic while exclusively focusing on intellectualism for rhetoric. This section can be divided into three parts: Ephesus, Smyrna and Athens that the three eminent connoisseurs---Polemo of Laodicea, Aelius Aristides, and Herodes Atticus. I think you can shorten the description for each connoisseur, probably excluding quotes, and use as efficient and useful information as well depending on how you want readers to view this article. Similarly, it is very helpful and effective as an article that has a lot of quotations from the book, especially from Philostratus, however, to some extent, you could have shortened it a bit for readers to read it more thoroughly. Again, please revisit the reference of how to cite the sources, I think the reason that you received a warning that it has an essay or paper format in its citation is mainly due to the format of citation.

Overall I think it is a very informative and useful article for those who haven’t heard or don’t have much knowledge of Ancient Greek society. Just make sure that you organize your information more effectively by sub-diving it into various sections. In addition, as for as the citations go, I think you can also go check with the standard Wikipedia format to revisit your used sources.

III. Reference

For your information and reference, I think this might be a useful source: Wabash University. Hopefully this piece of source helps you to recap and finalize the article.

Great input overall! Well done!!! Yjchang86 (talk)

A further Comment

6 November 2010 Generally speaking I agree that this is a not a bad article. Certainly Wikipedia needs something on Second Sophistic. However the introduction is focussed too much on Romans and their respect for the Greeks. Most of this is irrelevant. Most modern scholars who talk about 'the Second Sophistic' talk about the phenomenon in terms of Greek literature under the Roman Empire, not about Roman responses to the Greeks. This is probably an error or oversight, but there we go. As it currently stands the article is much too focussed on Romans and their appreciation of the wonderful Greeks - 146 BC is not an important date in Second Sophistic. The ancient Greeks were indeed wonderful but this reads like a biased Greek nationalist view of the Second Sophistic and therefore it kind of misses the point.

What I would propose is something on the following lines:

The 'Second Sophistic' is a literary-historical term used with varying degrees of specificity (cf. P. A. Brunt, 'The Bubble of the Second Sophistic' BICS 39 (1994), 25-52). It refers most pertinently to the Greek showpiece orators who flourished from the reign of Nero until c.230 CE and who were catalogued and celebrated by the Severan writer Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists (481); indeed Philostratus coined the term

Apart from a couple of individual speeches of Marcus Antonius Polemon of Laodicea, and, probably, of others, the work of only one of Philostratus' sophists, Aelius Aristides, survives (Dio of Prusa was a 'philosopher-sophist' apparently not trivial enough to be a complete sophist). The millionaire and benefactor Herodes Atticus is another important representative [cf. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 97.5.10 of Tom L. Kokolakis, "The Personality of Herodes Atticus," by Jennifer Tobin, Bilkent University, Ankara]. However, the 'movement' was so dominant in Greek intellectual culture that its influence can be found not only in orators, but in almost all the prose-writers of the great efflorescence of Greek literature at this time, even among the writers of 'novels' (erotikoi logoi lit. 'love-tales')

The most characteristic feature is a preoccupation with the world of Classical Athens, or, at least, with the Greek world before the Romans. Many authors tried to write and even, apparently, to speak, using the forms and vocabulary of the Attic dialect of half a millennium earlier, a practice (or an anxiety) known as 'Atticism'. By the end of the second century there were rival camps, bitterly opposed, of extreme Atticists who would exclude anything which was not paralleled in Plato or Lysias, and moderates, whose definition of Atticism was broader and whose policing of the language was more relaxed.

If style and language were often fossilized, the content and form of Greek literature after Nero are novel and diverse. Among the speeches are eulogies, e.g. of Rome and its emperors, denunciations of entire cities for particular vices, and speeches which affected to have been written on the occasion of great moments in Greek history, on the occasion of the battle of Marathon etc. Occasionally, they would even address important local issues of contemporary relevance

In his Sacred Tales, Aristides wrote about his relationship with the healing-god Asclepius and described the dreams sent to him by the divinity. Pausanias (2) wrote what has been described as a tour-guide to the treasures of Greece, and indeed, description of scenes depicted in works of art (ekphrasis), or simply of scenes, has been identified as a typical feature of Greek literature in this period. Lucian of Samosata (Bibliografie, cf. David Konstan's select bibliography) wrote not only epideictic speeches, but satires, dialogues and miscellaneous essays. His lack of earnestness is another quintessential feature of the Second Sophistic, although this feature is not always obvious in other authors and does not necessarily, even in Lucian's oeuvre, imply an amusing read. All of which applies to Athenaeus from Naucratis in Egypt who wrote around 200CE a very long antiquarian dialogue concerned with the lifestyle of Classical and Hellenistic Greeks and the words they used to describe it.

Any comments welcomed...

Mens Sana (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)