A Fourth Sophistic Movement? Mêtis, Rhetoric, and Politics Between Byzantium and Italy in the Fourteenth Century

This article adopts the thesis formulated by Laurent Pernot, according to which sophists existed in every period of history. By comparing the rhetorical strategies developed by the Second Sophistic authors—in particular Aelius Aristides—with the works of the Late Byzantine politician and literatus Demetrius Kydones, striking similarities emerge, allowing an argument for the continuity of the Sophistic tradition. Authors of the Second Sophistic did not only contribute to the Byzantine politikòi stylistic models, but provided them with pragmatic approaches to navigating moments of crisis, even at the cost of negotiating and transforming traditional values. This emerges also in Kydones’ attempt to bring together East and West in order to contain the Turkish threat. His efforts mirror those of Aelius Aristides and other members of the Second Sophistic who similarly tried to mediate with the Roman empire. Furthermore, Kydones’ adoption of Greek paideia as a form of “soft power” in the West played a key role in the diffusion of the Sophistic tradition among Italian Humanists, like Leonardo Bruni. This phenomenon is closely linked with the “Sophistic Renaissance” explored by MacPhail and Katinis.