Late antiquity may seem to be a period of history that has been overstudied, yet there is still ample room for new approaches and work. To begin with, a number of writings composed by major figures of this period have not been edited or translated yet. This omission has been partially amended by S., who has translated seven orations (orations 7, 9, 11 and 13 untranslated into English until now, and oration 8 only partially) by the fourth-century ce philosopher Themistius addressed to the emperor Valens.

The first part of the book is a general introduction in which S. highlights the role of Themistius as a recruiter of suitable candidates for the Senate of Constantinople from among the local aristocracies in the East, a role that his social network and his status as a philosopher engaged in public matters made him perfectly suited for. S. also alludes to the difficult relationship Themistius had with the emperor Julian as well as to the historical circumstances under which Valens ascended to the throne. Then S. offers a summary of the seven translated speeches and of the main topics that Themistius dealt with in these speeches. The second part of the book presents the translation of orations 6–11 and 13. Each one is preceded by a detailed introduction to the themes discussed in the orations. The book also includes four maps (one with the main cities and dioceses of the Roman Empire towards the end of the fourth century, and three showing Valens’ position in his military campaigns against the Goths, the Persians and the usurper Procopius) and a glossary of terms from Roman administration.

After reading S.'s book, some may think of F. Millar's definition of what a Roman emperor was: ‘the emperor was what the emperor did’ (The Emperor in the Roman World [1977], p. 6). Millar's bold statement provoked some reactions that argued that the image of the emperor was also influenced and defined by external factors. This response to Millar's definition seems to be at the core of the rationale of S.'s analysis given his emphasis on underlining Themistius’ role in defending and broadcasting Valens’ policies. More specifically, S. thinks that Themistius’ mission ‘was to introduce him [Valens] and Valentinian to the eastern aristocracies’ (p. 27). This was a difficult task as the philosopher had to bridge the political and cultural gap that separated these two emperors (both from Pannonia, a region deemed to be unsophisticated and rough) from the eastern elites who demanded an emperor capable of protecting ‘their wealth and status and continue Constantius’ job of promoting and enhancing their capital’ (p. 65).

(Re)presenting Valens as an emperor up to the task of continuing Constantius’ work and of facing the ongoing problems of the Empire (internal divisions within Christianity and wars against the Goths and the Persians) was a mission that Themistius carried out with finesse by focusing on two of his main traits. On the one hand, Themistius managed to defend Valens’ decisions in the conflict between the Arians and Nicenes because he was a moderate pagan and, as such, was considered unbiased about the Christological issues involved in the conflict. In this sense, S. highlights (pp. 40–2) that Themistius, unlike other influential pagans of his time (e.g. Libanius), did not mind incorporating Christian texts and concepts into his works. On the other hand, S. pays particular attention to the way in which Themistius peppered his panegyrics to Valens with numerous references to Platonic and Aristotelian precepts on political philosophy in order to present Valens in a manner that was in accordance with the cultural conventions of the eastern elites. However, Themistius knew only too well that Valens could not be portrayed as an intellectual emperor as had been the case with Julian. Thus, S. points out that Themistius took great care in presenting Valens as the embodiment of Platonic and Aristotelian concepts despite the fact that the emperor did not know them (e.g. Or. 7.14.93b: ‘Even though you cannot recite Plato's teachings and are not familiar with Aristotle's, you confirm their ideas by your actions’, p. 134). In different sections of the book S. intimates that those concepts (philanthrōpia, philadelphia, andreia, karteria) were common currency in the political discourse of the 360s and 370s, but he also acknowledges Themistius’ originality when the philosopher portrayed himself as the lover of a young Gratian, the eldest son of Valentinian, following philosophical notions from Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium.

Regarding the formal aspects of the book, its signposting and carefully thought-out structure help readers move easily through the many references to contemporary sources (Ammianus Marcellinus features prominently) that back up S.'s arguments. However, in some instances, reading the translation of the speeches becomes an onerous task because of the number and the extension of the footnotes (e.g. p. 78 in which there are 9 lines of translation and 34 lines of footnotes). Although these footnotes are relevant to the text and speak highly of S.'s academic thoroughness, many of them could have been integrated into the introduction to each oration. Also, in my view, it would have been useful to elaborate more on the information about the audience of some of the speeches. For instance, S. thinks that Or. 8 ‘was delivered in the presence of the emperor, as the numerous second-person addresses indicate’ (p. 146), a plain argumentation that does not prove that Themistius delivered the speech in the presence of the emperor. This example contrasts with the detailed explanation of the audience of Themistius’ Or. 9 as, in this case, S. considers arguments omitted in the analysis of the audience of Or. 8.

Leaving these aspects aside, S.'s book is arguably a remarkable contribution to the field of late antique studies that complements his previous translation of Themistius’ works (Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works [2013]). In spite of the variety of the contexts (religion, politics, war) of the tumultuous events that occurred under the reign of Valens, S. offers a consistent and coherent explanation that is successful in presenting those historical events as originating from the same zeitgeist. In doing so, S. situates Themistius in the thick of the reactions to those events in a way that improves and amplifies our understanding of this figure as an adroit political adviser. As a result, the common opinion of Themistius as an Aristotelian philosopher active in the political sphere is widely established, since S. provides readers with sufficient evidence to prove that Themistius’ involvement in politics and religious disputations was more intense than commonly believed.