This collection on late antique panegyric casts new light on how different contexts shaped panegyrics by making each work unique and part of a common literary category at the same time. It raises many questions about the genre through a comparative approach that sees each of the twelve chapters shuttle between Greek and Latin, East and West, past authors and theorisers of epideictic speech and new, later representatives. The various ancient authors had to adjust their topoi and conventions to shifting political circumstances that presented them with unprecedented challenges. Across the book, there is a consistently high standard, and the different analyses enrich and extend the range of approaches, from the definition of panegyric as a genre to the weight given in some panegyrics to women, to Christianity and to barbarians. Omissions and comparisons in the corpus of the Panegyrici Latini and in the speeches of Ausonius, Symmachus, Libanius, Julian and Themistius are given ample space, while under-appreciated topics from fourth-century rhetoric also feature, such as civil war and Neoplatonism. The importance of the chronological frame for the volume, between 284 and 423 ce, is established by the editors in Chapter 1, where they consider the orators included to represent ‘the literary testament of a perhaps unrivalled cross section of late Roman society’ (p. 3).
The book relies on the importance of previous groundbreaking works and editions of epideictic speeches, but aims to free the study of the topic from a fixed perspective. For example, G. Sabbah's fundamental identification of communication ascendante and descendante in panegyrics (1984), which deployed degrees of interdependence between the orator as a representative of the community and of the emperor respectively, is not challenged, but the importance of the audience of the panegyrist's performance is highlighted by Ross, who addresses some neglected passages within Libanius’ Or. 12. With a similar deference to Sabbah, R. Chenault shows how, in some gratiarum actiones, such as Ausonius’ to Gratian (379 ce), the orator was the third party in a game of three players (emperor – community – orator) and not just the vehicle of a bottom-up (community > emperor) and top-down (emperor > community) dynamic. This is confirmed by Chenault's comparative study of Symmachus’ Or. 1, 2 and 3 and Ausonius’ Grat. Act., which successfully proves that the position and the status of the orator determined the strategies used in each speech.
The themes addressed by the volume are discussed by the editors in the introduction under four main subheadings: ‘What is Imperial Panegyric?’; ‘Panegyric in Modern Research’; ‘What is Panegyric Source Material For?’; and ‘Theory and Practice’. The first question is answered expansively by L. Pernot in the section ‘Theory and Practice’, devoted to the theoretical background of late antique panegyrics, in which the relevance of Menander Rhetor's treatise on the speech in praise of the emperor is reconsidered. In the same section follow more focused discussions by R. Rees on prosopopoeia in Greek and Latin speeches, and by G. Karla on Libanius’ Or. 59. After P.-L. Malosse's French edition (2003) and Ross's fundamental article (‘Libanius the Historian’, GRBS 56 [2016]), criticism of this last oration is here sharpened by a new perspective that uses literary critical tools such as G. Genette's (Palimpsests [1997]) definition of hypertext, R.F. Thomas's (Reading Virgil and His Texts [1999]) distinction between different degrees and modes of interactions of a later text with an earlier exemplary one, and G.B. Conte's (The Rhetoric of Imitation [1986]) theories on literary imitation. In this way, Karla reaches unexpected outcomes regarding the genre of this oration by Libanius, which offers a double praise, of Constantius II and Constans, and takes us well beyond the limits of Menander Rhetor's theorisation of the βασιλικὸς λόγος.
The second part of the volume, ‘The Imperial Image’, comprises chapters by B. Washington and S. Tougher. Washington's chapter is devoted to the female portraits of Eusebia in Julian, Or. 2 (Bidez 1932 = Or. 3 Wright 1913) and of Stilicho's wife Serena in Claudian's Laus Serenae. The comparison is built on close analysis of Julian's and Claudian's reception of the treatment of women from the imperial family shown in previous orations – namely Pan. Lat. VII/6 (with its marginal sketching of Constantine's wife Fausta), Pliny's Panegyric (with its mention of Trajan's wife and sister, Plotina and Marciana) and the Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre (for the presence of Livia, mother of Tiberius). Washington shows persuasively how Julian and Claudian exploited the praise of women as an indirect way of praising the ruling emperor (or, in the case of Stilicho, the most important contemporary general). This is shown by how both panegyrists adapted Menander Rhetor's scheme to highlight the feminine virtue of temperance (σωφροσύνη), with the aim of avoiding any suggestion that the women's close marital relationship could be seen as interference in their husbands’ rule. On the other hand, Tougher compares the gratiarum actiones of Mamertinus to Julian (Pan. Lat. III/11) and of Julian to Constantius II and Eusebia (Or. 1–2 Bidez); in particular, he addresses the matter of how they dealt differently with cities, philosophy and the imperial family. In doing this, Tougher aligns with the broader aim of the volume to study Latin and Greek panegyrics together and opens up new questions about the two authors, especially as regards their shaping of Constantius II and Julian.
In addition to Chenault's chapter on Ausonius and Symmachus, Part 3 includes two innovative contributions. First, J. Corke-Webster discusses the novelty brought by Eusebius of Caesarea to the literary landscape of panegyrics that had never dealt with Christianity. The contribution breaks new ground as regards the strategies Eusebius adopted to smooth the transition from a pagan to a Christian Emperor who, because of his faith and that of the orator, could not be presented but as the emissary of God. But it was not only the ‘blurring of roles’ (p. 150) that Eusebius had to cope with. These were accompanied by new circumstances of delivery of panegyric and the blend of religious and imperial rhetoric. The keen analysis of these aspects of Eusebius’ work as a panegyrist of Constantine reaches its apex as Corke-Webster sees in them tools through which Eusebius laid a fundamental watershed between the secular and the religious spheres. D. Burgersdijk's chapter on Neoplatonism in the Panegyrici Latini offers a new reading of many passages through a philosophical lens. For example, in Pan. Lat. VIII/5.19, where Constantius I is said ut caelo delapsus, even though he was not apotheosised, Burgersdijk suggests a possible allusion to the Neoplatonic κατάβασις. This successfully opens the Gallic speeches, usually studied in an enclosed and compartmentalised way, to the wider literary and intellectual context of their times, when Neoplatonism spread. In the early fourth century, when many surviving panegyrics were delivered, Porphyry had recently popularised Plotinus’ works and Calcidius was translating Plato's Timaeus into Latin.
The final section, ‘Outsiders Within the Speech’, comprises three chapters. Developing further the persuading conclusions of his 2018 monograph (Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire), Omissi focuses on the omissions of civil wars within the panegyrics, despite the undeniable impact of social unrest throughout the fourth century. Omissi stresses the importance of epideictic rhetoric as a historical source contemporary to the facts told, even though it tells history (and civil wars as well) from ‘the victor's perspective’ (p. 214). R. Stone guides us through Themistius’ Orations by showing how the portrayal of non-Romans developed throughout the reign of Theodosius according to his policy towards the Goths. Stone successfully demonstrates how between the lines of official orations it is possible to detect the position of the author vis-à-vis official policy. Stone keenly shows the increasingly reassuring behaviour Themistius had towards the audience of his speeches regarding Theodosius’ most recent agreements with the barbarians – namely in Or. 14, 15 and 16. In the final contribution Ross focuses on the audience of public orations, by proving the fallacy of the stereotype of ‘a rather nebulous group of passive, anonymous hearers of a speech’ (p. 257). Ross highlights how the rhetor was concerned about the public's reactions and made an effort to build up a common identity by showing himself as the representative of the audience, each time using an original strategy without the support of any formal theorisation.
Overall, this volume usefully foregrounds how insufficient Menander Rhetor and his treatise on imperial speech are for an all-encompassing evaluation of the value and impact of public orations in late antiquity. It shows how each panegyric is embedded in its historical circumstances and can be disclosed as a fundamental tool for a historical understanding of its own time, but also stresses how the panegyrists were deeply influenced by the context and had to adjust their rhetorical tools to changing factors, such as the status of the praised, their personal position, the type of succession to power, religion and court. In such a delicate balance, there were always reasons for omissions, and political statements could have a vast reach beyond the occasion and place of delivery, with the power to mould later historical narrative. Like Pacatus Drepanius had foretold in Pan. Lat. II/12.47.6: Ad me longinquae convenient civitates, a me gestarum ordinem rerum stilus omnis accipiet, a me argumentum poetica, a me fidem sumet historia.
