Blowing Your Own Horn: Conceptions of Boasting in the Greco-Roman World

Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to discuss concepts related to boasting in the Greco-Roman world with an eye toward understanding how these notions might illuminate the Pauline understanding of boasting. Many in the Greco-Roman world who studied the discipline of rhetoric often expressed concern about the way one spoke about oneself. Plutarch, for example, who had much to say about boasting, indicates that boasting both tended to irritate audiences and provided an invitation for criticism. Similarly, most of the descriptions about boasting and self-praise in the Greco-Roman world are negative. However, there were both acceptable forms of boasting and specific contexts in which boasting could was regarded as acceptable. One could, for example, contrast oneself with an opponent in such a way as to downplay one’s own achievements while calling attention to flaws of the opponent. One could use oneself either as an example to be followed or as a reference point for contending parties in seeking to resolve conflict between those parties. One could also and would often point to one’s own achievements or character traits in defending oneself from criticism. In addition, a speaker could use certain subtleties in order to cover boasting. Such subtleties include denying specific achievements that had been spoken by a third party, ascribing one’s achievements to the gods or fate, and refusing to boast while boasting. Ultimately, it seems that many of the characteristics of boasting in the Greco-Roman world are comparable with Paul’s discussions of boasting in several New Testament texts. Thus, I will conclude this paper by comparing and contrasting the concept of boasting in the Greco-Roman world with several statements made by the Apostle Paul in order to seek to understand those statements more fully.

The Rhetorical Inefficiency of Boasting
Attitudes toward boasting in the Greco-Roman world were not completely unlike attitudes about boasting today. Generally speaking, boasting held some rather negative connotations.[1] Boasting was viewed as something arising from deficient character and was generally frowned upon by listeners.[2] There are several notable reasons for this described by those who were schooled in rhetoric.

Boasting as an Irritant to Audiences
Boasting was generally viewed as annoying and bothersome to one’s audience. This is evident in Plutarch’s descriptions of Cicero. Cicero had become looked upon as conceited because of his boasting. Plutarch says, “Cicero made himself generally odious, not by any base action, but by continually praising and magnifying himself. This made him hateful to many.”[3] Further, Plutarch says, Cicero “went so far as to fill his books and writings with the praises of himself; and he made his oratory, which was naturally very pleasant and had the greatest charm, irksome and tedious to his hearers, since this unpleasant practice clung to him like a fatality!”[4]

Similarly, in his textbook on rhetoric, Quintilian says that boasting should be avoided since it tended to irritate audiences. This irritating quality rendered boasting as an ineffective means of persuasion. He describes the perspective of the rhetorician saying, “Every kind of self-laudation is unbecoming, and especially praise of his own eloquence from an orator, as it not only gives offense to his audience, but generally creates in them even a dislike towards him.”[5] This, Quintilian says, also includes the boasting that is implicit in false modesty. Quintilian says, “Yet I know not whether open self-applause is not more tolerable, even from the very undisguisedness of the offense, than the hypocritical boastfulness of those who speak of themselves as poor when they abound with wealth, as obscure when they are of high rank, as weak when they have great influence, as ignorant and incapable of speaking when they are possessed of great eloquence.”[6]

Rhetoricians also describe the various reasons that boasting irritates audiences. Quintilian says that the reason that boasting is so irritating to audiences is because of the specific effect that it has on various kinds of listeners. First, boasting produces envy in those who perceive themselves to be inferior to the one who boasts.[7] Second, boasting produces scorn amongst superiors who recognize the substandard quality of the claims made by the one who boasts.[8] Lastly, says Quintilian, those who are prudent will disapprove because boasting is inherently imprudent.[9] In the same way, Plutarch indicates that audiences are irritated by boasting because “if we listen in silence we appear disgruntled and envious, while if we shy at this we are forced to join in the eulogies and confirm them against our better judgment.”[10] And so the disdain towards boasting seems to be linked to the result that it produces in the hearts and minds of the audience members.

Boasting as an Invitation for Criticism
Not only did boasting annoy one’s audience, but it also provided an opportunity for one to be criticized by an opponent.[11] This is evident in the response by the Thebans to the Plataeans in Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides describes the Thebans response to the boasting of the Plataeans in which the Thebans proclaim, “We must answer their charges and refute their self-praise, in order that neither our bad name nor their good may help them, but that you may hear the real truth on both points, and so decide!”[12] Similarly, the boasting of Apion invites the criticism of Josephus. According to Josephus, Apion suggests that there are no great men who have arisen from among the Jewish people.[13] There are, says Apion, no artistic geniuses or reputable philosophers such as Socrates, Zeno, or Cleanthes.[14] Josephus writes:

He enumerates Socrates and Zeno and Cleanthes, and some others of similar prestige. After all of this, he then adds himself to them, which is the most remarkable thing of all that he says. And he proclaims that Alexandria is blessed because it has such a citizen in it as he! For he was the fittest man to be a witness to his own deeds, although he has appeared to all others no better than a wicked charlatan, of a corrupt life and ill discourses; on which account one may justly pity Alexandria, if it should value itself upon such a citizen as he is.[15]

It is for these reasons that Plutarch, Quintilian, and other rhetoricians urge orators to exercise care in the use of self-praise.

Acceptable Forms of Boasting
Not all boasting was looked down upon in the Greco-Roman world. As Betz has noted, it seems that there are two divergent conventions.[16] Plutarch says, “It is agreed that to speak to others of one’s own importance or power is offensive, but in practice not many even of those who condemn such conduct avoid the odium of it.”[17] Thus, in his On Praising Oneself Inoffensively, Plutarch seeks to describe acceptable forms of boasting. These two conceptions of boating that existed in the Greco-Roman world are probably best explained by the fact that there are differences in the various contexts in which boasting can occur. Plutarch and others view these different contexts as determinative in whether or not the boasting in question was viewed as offensive or inoffensive.[18]

There are several forms of boasting which were viewed as acceptable in the Greco-Roman world. One could, for example, implement boasting in order to defend oneself against an opponent. This is what is illustrated by Demosthenes as he defends himself against his opponents Aeschines and Philocrates. Demosthenes urges his audience to examine the actions of Aeschines and Philocrates and to compare them with his own.[19] In another conflict, Demosthenes responds to criticism by speaking specifically regarding his own character and achievements. He writes:

With a soul upright, honest and incorruptible, appointed to the control of more momentous transactions than any statesman of my time, I have administered them throughout in all purity and righteousness. On those grounds I claim this distinction. As for my fortifications, which you treated so satirically, and my entrenchments, I do, and I must, judge these things worthy of gratitude and thanks; but I give them a place far removed from my political achievements. I did not fortify Athens with masonry and brickwork: they are not the works on which I chiefly pride myself. Regard my fortifications as you ought, and you will find armies and cities and outposts, seaports and ships and horses, and a multitude ready to fight for their defense. These were the bastions I planted for the protection of Attic so far as it was possible to human forethought; and therewith I fortified, not the ring-fence of our port and our citadel, but the whole country. Nor was I beaten by Philip in forethought or in armaments; that is far from the truth. The generals and the forces of the allies were beaten by his good fortune. Have I any proofs of my claim? Yes, proofs definite and manifest. I ask you all to consider them.[20]

According to convention, this kind of boasting was viewed as excusable. It was even looked upon as something that the orator was forced to do. Such seems to be the case in Cicero’s letter to Lucceius. Here Cicero indicates that he will be forced to engage in self-praise if Lucceius is prevented from providing commendations on his behalf.[21] In another, albeit similar, situation, Quintilian defends Cicero on the grounds that he was forced to enter into boasting. Quintilian writes:

He had either to defend those whose aid he had received in suppressing the conspiracy of Catiline, or he had to justify himself against popular odium, which he was so far from being able to withstand that he had to go into exile as a punishment for having saved his country, so that frequent allusions to achievements in his consulship may be thought to have been made less from vanity than for self-defense.[22]

In the eyes of Quintilian, this situation had forced Cicero to resort to self-praise. Consequently, the coercion provided justification for Cicero’s boasting.

Another form of boasting that was often viewed as acceptable from the standpoint of the rhetorician was boasting in which the orator used himself as an example to be followed. Plutarch indicates that boasting could also be used by a speaker if he was using himself as a moral example for his audience. He writes:

Consider, then, whether a man might praise himself to exhort his hearers and inspire them with emulation and ambition. For exhortation that includes action as well as argument, and presents the speakers’ own example and challenge, is endued with life: it arouses and spurs the hearer, and not only awakens his ardor and fixes his purpose, but also affords him hope that the end can be attained and is not impossible.[23]

In a similar way, Dio Chrysostom seeks to provide a defense of Nestor’s engagement in self-praise as portrayed in Homer’s Iliad. Nestor boasts concerning the fact that important men look to him for advice and heed his word. This, then, serves as the basis for Nestor’s argument to Agamemnon and Achilles that they should listen to him. Concerning this, Watson notes, “This self-praise was considered acceptable because it secured the attention, compliance, and imitation of the audience.”[24]

Subtleties Used to Cover Boasting
In addition to acceptable forms of boasting, rhetoricians note various subtleties that can be used to cover boasting. An orator could, for example, deny the truth of specific achievements. This was a sort of false humility that was used to subtly draw attention to the orator’s achievements. Keener says that according to Fronto, “One orator had many examples of his greatness read, dismissing each in succession by noting that no one would want to hear them.”[25] An orator could likewise minimize negative perceptions by ascribing that about which he boasted to the gods, fate, or others. Quintilian describes Cicero’s boasting as excusable, partly because “he attributes it sometimes to the meritorious efforts of the senate, sometimes to the providence of the immortal gods.”[26] Plutarch also describes this approach saying that “those who are forced to speak in their own praise are made more endurable by one procedure in particular: not to lay claim to everything, but to disburden themselves, as it were, of honor, letting part of it rest with chance, and part with God.”[27]

Another subtly used by orators was refusing to boast within the context of implicit boasting. Cicero, for example, “declined to comment on his greatness; his rival, however, was clearly unfit, and if Cicero, who had spent his entire life developing the requisite skills appeared inadequate, his rival must be less equipped!”[28] One could also offset the negative perceptions of boasting by seasoning boasts with statements connoting humility. Plutarch explains such tact saying, “Many also blunt the edge of envy by occasionally inserting into their own praise a confession even of poverty and indigence or actually of low birth.”[29] This was exemplified by Dio Chrysostom in his Thirty-Second Discourse. In his own defense of boasting, Dio says, “My purpose in mentioning such matters was neither to elate you nor to place myself beside those who habitually sing such strains, whether orators or poets. They are clever persons, might Sophists, wonder-workers, but I am quite ordinary and prosaic in my utterance.”[30]

Greco-Roman Conceptions of Boasting and 2 Corinthians 10-13
As has been noted, Paul generally follows Greco-Roman conventions regarding self-praise.[31] In 2 Cor 10:10-16, Paul boasts in order to contest false accusations. Concerning his opponents statements about him, he writes, “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.’ But let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present” (10:10-11). In 2 Cor 11:18, Paul boasts in order to provide a defense to the accusations leveled at him by his opponents saying “since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast too.” In 2 Cor 10:13 (also see 1 Cor 15:10), Paul ascribes his achievements to the work of God. As described above, this kind of thing is closely in accordance with the advice of Plutarch (although Paul ascribes his achievements to the God whom he had encountered on the road to Damascus rather than to the gods of the Roman pantheon or to fate). Paul also clearly seasons his boasting with statements reflecting humility such as in 11:6 when he describes himself as “unskilled in speech.” And so it is evident that, to a significant extent, Paul adheres to the conventions of his day.

Nevertheless, while Paul conforms to the Greco-Roman conventions regarding boasting, he indicates that he does not boast according to the world’s standards—he does not boast kata/ sa,rka. Paul’s opponents are saying that he is unskilled as a rhetorician. This, they are suggesting, is evident by his lack of oratory prowess (10:10, 11:6) and unimpressive physical presence (10:10). These are qualities which are recognized by those with whom Paul is contending as features which characterize strength. For this reason, Paul responds to his critics. On the one hand, he argues that his opponents’ accusations are unwarranted. While his opponents admitted the rhetorical skill inherent in Paul’s writings, they ridiculed his personal presence. But Paul indicates that “what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present” (10:11). This evidences Paul’s understanding that the measure of his approval was not the same standard by which his opponents evaluated him. Rather, “it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends” (10:18). For this reason, Paul boasts in his weakness (11:30). In boasting in his weakness, Paul creates a kind of parody of Greco-Roman notions of the privileged and influential.[32] Since the influential were skilled in rhetoric and oratory, Paul ironically characterizes his own strength as weakness. He was weak by the world’s standards and characterizes himself as such in order to create his polemic. Paul boasts in his so-called weakness knowing that this very thing allowed God to receive the glory rather than him. Thus, he is able to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “He who boasts is to boast in the Lord.”

______________________

Endnotes

[1] Bultmann notes that the word kauca,omai almost always has negative connotations. See Rudolf Bultmann, “kauca,omai,” in TDNT, (ed. Gerhard Kittel; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1965), 646.

[2] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.15-17.

[3] Plutarch, Cicero, 24:1.

[4] Plutarch, Cicero, 24:2.

[5] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.15.

[6] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.21.

[7] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.17.

[8] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.17.

[9] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.17.

[10] Plutarch, On Inoffensive Self-Praise, 539D.

[11] Craig S. Keener, 1 – 2 Corinthians, (New York: Cambridge, 2005), 221.

[12] Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. 3.61.1.

[13] Josephus, Against Apion, 2:135.

[14] Josephus, Against Apion, 2:135.

[15] Josephus, Against Apion, 2:135.

[16] Hans Dieter Betz, “De Laude Ipsius (Moralia 539A – 547F),” Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, Ed. Hans Dieter Betz, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978), 373.

[17] Betz, 373.

[18] In addition to Plutarch, see Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.21; Demosthenes, De Corona, 299-300; and Dio Chrysostom, Fifth Discourse, 3-9.

[19] Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, 174.

[20] Demosthenes, De Corona, 299-300.

[21] Cicero, Letters, 5.12.8.

[22] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.18.

[23] Plutarch, Moralia, 544D.

[24] Duane F. Watson, “Paul and Boasting,” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Ed. J. Paul Sampley, (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2003), 78.

[25] Craig S. Keener, 1 – 2 Corinthians, (New York: Cambridge, 2005), 222.

[26] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 11.1.22.

[27] Plutarch, On Inoffensive Self-Praise, 544E.

[28] Keener, 221.

[29] Plutarch, On Inoffensive Self-Praise, 544B.

[30] Dio Chrysostom, Thirty-Second Discourse, 39.

[31] Duane F. Watson, “Paul and Boasting,” Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Ed. J. Paul Sampley, (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2003), 82; J. P. Samply, “Paul, His Opponents in 2 Corinthians 10-13, and the Rhetorical Handbooks,” in The Social Word of Formative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. Neusner, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 162-77; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

[32] Keener, 222.