The fourth-century Libanian declamations under study are among those that name specific individuals rather than generic types. Nine of the ten declamations are translated into a modern language for the first time. In the declamations, ten individuals are impersonated, six from myth and four from history: Menelaus and Odysseus (Decls 3 and 4), who plead with the Trojans to return Helen and avert war; Achilles (Decl. 5), responding to Odysseus seeking a Greek reconciliation at Troy; Orestes (Decl. 6), defending himself for killing his mother; Poseidon and Ares (Decls 7 and 8), who alternately prosecute and defend the slaying of Poseidon's son; Cimon (Decl. 11), who urges the Athenians to release his imprisoned father Miltiades; a Corinthian (Decl. 13), charging the Athenians with impiety for forcing besieged Potidaeans to practise cannibalism; Callaeschrus (Decl. 14), arguing that his reward for tyrannicide should be permission to bury the tyrant – his son; and Spartan Archidamus (Decl. 24), who defends his right to speak publicly despite his youth. Libanian authenticity is considered very doubtful to spurious for Decl. 6 ps.-Libanius and doubtful for Decl. 24 (?) Libanius.

In a general introduction details of the life and work of Libanius situate the declamations in ‘the traditional literary-rhetorical education’ (p. 3), which is perhaps to say, in what fostered the community of Hellenes. ‘Declamation was one (important) way by which the Greek past was kept alive in the Roman East, whether to help empower the Greek elite over the masses, or as a way of generally instilling pride in Greeks ruled by Rome’ (p. 7). Debate itself, even as imaginative as here, is a legacy of Greek civic and intellectual life. There is a question as to whether a declamation originated in a school context or before a general audience (p. 4). Declamations may be deliberative, advocating a course of action, or judicial, either accusatory or defensive (p. 5). There are factual premises of the case (hypotheseis); a preliminary explanatory comment; proem, narration, proof, which may include the refutation of stated or anticipated arguments of the other side (antitheseis), and epilogue. Stasis is the central argumentative issue (p. 6).

In separate introductions the mythological and the historical declamations are set in their literary or historical contexts, and structural aspects are discussed. For instance, the mythological Declamations 3 and 4 are deliberative in their attempt to convince the Trojans to avert the war, but they are also accusatory of Alexander [Paris], whom the virtuous Trojans must recognise as a single bad apple (p. 13, wryly paraphrasing 3.3). There is a list of ten antitheseis, including the Greek dismissal of the Trojan objection that Alexander should be praised for wanting a woman as outstanding as Helen: ‘not at Menelaus's expense’ (p. 14, at 4.75–7). The antitheseis are employed mostly by Odysseus in his longer oration, which Libanius understands as a stylistic alternative to that of Menelaus (p. 12). The moral issues are Alexander's violation of guest-friendship and Greek restraint in the use of force against the Trojans.

In the mythological Declamation 5 Achilles narrates his own achievements until his withdrawal from combat. Self-praise may be rhetorically necessary, or it may be offensive. There is likely to be disagreement on whether the Libanian Achilles is ultimately ‘a reluctant self-praiser or is using the occasion to indulge an innate arrogance’ (p. 18). Achilles responds to seven antitheseis, including that he is not following his father Peleus’ warning to control his anger: his father never intended to condemn just anger (p. 17, at 5.35–42; see rendering below). The theme of ‘persuading Achilles’ is explored by other declaimers including Aelius Aristides, to whom Libanius looked, and Choricius of Gaza, who then looked to Libanius (pp. 19–20).

The introduction to the historical – and sensationalist – Declamation 13 describes it as very Thucydidean, inspired by the account of the Athenian suppression of the revolt of its ally Potidaea, colonists of Corinth, in 432 bc (Thuc. 1.56–65), especially with reference to Athenian imperialism against fellow Greeks. ‘One cannot fail to be reminded here of the Corinthian speeches critical of Athenian imperialism in Thucydides 1.68–71 and 120–4’ (p. 123). In the Libanian version a single spokesman for the Corinthians charges that the Athenians, directly responsible for the cannibalism among the Potidaeans, are guilty of impiety. The proof includes a response to the Athenian objection that the central argumentative issue (stasis) is metastasis, here in particular the transference of blame to an external factor outside the defendant's control, and that in this case a siege and whatever follows is a legitimate act of war (p. 124). The Athenians also will contend that the Potidaeans could have surrendered before cannibalism became necessary; this is the stasis of counteraccusation. The Potidaeans claim that surrender was a practical impossibility because of fear of the outcome.

Despite the heft of the declamatory structure and of certain subjects, the translations of the text are lively and fluid. On the Trojan seizure of Helen (Decl. 3.8), Τὸ μέντοι πρᾶγμα τοῦτον ἐσκευωρήθη τὸν τρόπον is rendered ‘But this is how the dirty deed was done’ (p. 31). In Achilles’ reply to Odysseus’ speech of entreaty (Decl. 5.29), εἰ μὲν οὖν τέρψαι βουλόμενος ἀθυμοῦντα τὴν Ἕκτορος διηγοῦ λαμπρότητα, καλῶς εὗρες ὅθεν παραμυθήσῃ is rendered, ‘If you told me about Hector's brilliance to cheer me up in my depression, then you came up with precisely the right encouragement’ (p. 65). Below are three more selections from Declamations 5 and 13.

In the appendix, two Libanian declamatory fragments are newly translated: ‘Pindar, Athens, and Thebes’ (F 49), with the Libanian or pre-Libanian invention of Thebes’ stoning of Pindar for praising Athens (pp. 185–6), and ‘Alcibiades Accused of Impiety’ (F 50), including the use of the sacred torches from the [Eleusinian] mysteries in his revelry (p. 198 [c][2]). Here too is the first translation of the Athenian response by Gregory of Cyprus to the Libanian Decl. 13 of the Corinthians, who are mendacious and prone to vilify (p. 191), and the anonymous ‘Declamation of Paris to the Trojans’, which answers ambassadors in Decls in 3 and 4 (p. 189).

The exegesis throughout is meticulous and illuminating, and the English renderings evoke the vigour of the cultural tradition. The carefully planned volume is annotated with substantial references to the rhetoric of the period.