It is a welcome trend of the last few years that, as a genre, panegyric has become fashionable again. At the origin of this development were two noteworthy publications, M. Whitby's 1998 collection of essays (The Propaganda of Power) and R. Rees's 2002 monograph (Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric: ad 289–307), but the intervening years have seen a number of important case studies and collaborative volumes, as well as a dearly-needed German translation of the Panegyrici Latini by B. Müller-Rettig (2008). With the publication of the collection under review here, as well as A. Omissi's Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire (2018), our understanding of panegyrics and their role in late antique imperial ideology has now, again, been expanded considerably.
While Omissi's monograph is not the subject of this review, it should be read very much in conjunction with Burgersdijk and Ross's collection because, while the latter explicitly does not focus on the construction of imperial legitimacy, the former very much does. In addition, though, Omissi also focuses on the importance of panegyrics as a source for late antique historiographers and modern historians as well as a medium of image-making. The latter is the main point of the work under review: in their valuable introduction Burgersdijk and Ross situate the collection squarely in the context of what they call the ‘representational turn’ (p. 8), tackling the question ‘of how … imperial figures are presented and which are the underlying reasons for these presentations’. The editors’ view of late Roman emperors is laudably modern, departing from the simplifying top-down pyramidal model of emperorship by asserting that ‘the structural integrity of that pyramid was ensured by every layer’ and that imperial ‘images’ (in the widest sense) were ‘essential for ensuring the structural integrity of the system’ (p. 2). As one of the foremost means of image-making, panegyrics are naturally of extreme importance for our understanding of how this pyramid was held together.
To better understand the role played by panegyrics in shaping imperial images, the editors argue for the adoption of a theoretical framework inspired by literary criticism: ‘imagology’, which offers ‘a structuralist approach’ (p. 10) and by understanding textual images in panegyrics as ‘non-essential, as subjective … allows these texts to be viewed as an active part in an ongoing process of interpretation and reshaping of the memory of an emperor’ (p. 11). This is similar to one of Omissi's main points, that the construction of ‘good’ emperors is dependent on the concomitant re-construction of some of their predecessors, ‘bad’, ‘usurpers’ or ‘tyrants’ – they are ‘made tyrants by the victory of others’, as the Historia Augusta (Pesc. Nig. 1.1) puts it. While not all chapters make explicit reference to specific elements of imagology (such as the difference between auto- and hetero-image; cf. p. 12 and esp. Chapter 10), this basic understanding of the texts under study is evident throughout the collection, and it is this coherence (as well as the individual quality of chapters) that makes it so valuable an addition to scholarship. As a consequence of their framework, the editors have chosen to include not only ‘legitimate’ (as ambivalent as this term may be) emperors, but also rulers whose claims to legitimacy were rejected post factum (Chapter 4, Maxentius), sons and heirs of emperors (Chapter 6, Crispus) and non-imperial persons such as Stilicho (Chapter 14).
The chapters are arranged chronologically with no further subdivision along structural, textual or analytical lines. It would be impossible to do justice to all fourteen contributions in this stimulating collection, but special mention should be made of several, particularly those of R. Hunsucker, Burgersdijk, G. Woudhuysen, D. den Hengst and M.P. García Ruiz. Hunsucker's study of the importance of Rome herself in image-making of Maxentius, Maximian and Constantine shows how Maxentius sought to use a lacuna in Tetrarchic image-making by creating an auto-image closely modelled on Augustan models of the emperor as re-founder of the city in the mould of Romulus. He argues that this appropriation of Rome's mythical founder was successful both within Maxentius’ sphere of influence and without, leading to a necessary ‘cleansing’ of this image by the remaining Tetrarchs and especially by his brother-in-law Constantine (p. 87). Hunsucker's analysis extends beyond the genre of the panegyric, however, also taking into account official celebrations in Rome, the archaeological evidence of the comitial area in the Forum (pp. 104–7) and epigraphic texts.
Burgersdijk's analysis of Crispus’ image in panegyrical accounts also treats imperial offspring, though it comes to fundamentally different conclusions. He investigates the question of how the son of an emperor and possible successor was addressed in panegyrics, with particular attention to the special dynamics of non-biological and biological succession in the Tetrarchic system (p. 140). His conclusions are noteworthy: none of the sons of Constantine figured prominently in the extant panegyrics, even those who had been raised to the rank of Caesar or who had, like Crispus, achieved individual military distinction. In Pan. Lat. 4 (10), for instance, ostensibly given on the occasion of the quinquennalia of Crispus and Constantine II, both Caesars are mentioned but once and in passing (36.3; 37.5). Where they are praised, as in Optatianus’ Carmina, they serve as means of indirectly praising the emperor, whose guiding hand was responsible for any positive traits they exhibited (p. 151). The chapters by Woudhuysen, ‘Uncovering Constans’ Image’, and den Hengst, ‘Valentinian as Portrayed by Ammianus: a Kaleidoscopic Image’, are similar in that they provide, in slightly different senses, a reading à rebours of their sources. Woudhuysen's approach is by his own admission ‘experimental’ (p. 159), but he succeeds in pulling a coherent analysis of auto- and hetero-image from the sharply opposed images of Constans in secular historiography and Christian sources. Proposing that the little known De errore profanarum religionum of Iulius Firmicus Maternus should be read as a Christianised version of the panegyric genre (pp. 174–5), Woudhuysen argues that the vice-ridden Constans of secular authors was a conscious and carefully constructed negative to counter the young emperor's auto-image that is still traceable in Firmicus and Libanius’ Or. 59 (p. 179). Den Hengst, on the other hand, subjects Ammianus’ lively image of the Pannonian emperors, and especially of Valentinian, to a close reading. Ammianus is by no means a panegyricist, but his picture of Valentinian is noteworthy in that it opposes the emperor's positive, military traits with a condemnation of his truculent and ruthless character (it generally bears remembering that Valentinian died in a paroxysm of rage from a burst blood vessel when dealing with envoys from the Quadi). For den Hengst, this ‘kaleidoscope’ of Valentinian's character is the result of Ammianus’ approach to historiography, wherein he ‘considers it his duty to provide his readers with sufficient information to form their own judgement’ (p. 268). Finally, García Ruiz’s chapter on ‘Julian's Self-Representation in Coins and Texts’ is something of an exception to this collection, in that it is one of the few studies to venture explicitly beyond the strictly textual images to be found in panegyrics or historiography. Profiting from the fact that we can show how and by what means Julian was involved in the creation of his own auto-image, García Ruiz builds on previous work by E. Varner and F. Guidetti in drawing comparisons and direct connections between Julian's coinage and the auto-image fashioned, for example in the Letter to the Athenians, the Caesars, the Misopogon and even the Hymn to King Helios. Her analysis of both Julian's coin portraits and the famous bronze SECVRITAS REI PVBL(ICAE) issue with a bull and two stars on the reverse, which she interprets as a symbolic representation of thoughts expressed in the Hymn, is convincing. It also shows, however, how important it is to include a wide diversity of evidence in the study of panegyrics, in order to understand fully the message encoded in this fascinating medium and to fulfil the hope expressed by the editors in their introduction to let the results of such study ‘direct us towards new perspectives on Roman emperorship’ (p. 15).
In that context it is permissible to formulate one caveat about both the collection reviewed here and Omissi's monograph mentioned earlier. It is emphatically not meant as a criticism but rather as a suggestion for further study. In his chapter on Constans Woudhuysen half-jokingly laments that only ‘half a panegyric’ about Constans survives, but ‘from the wrong half of the empire’ (p. 158). Though he goes on to discuss the oration by Libanius in question, and does so productively, the aside is nevertheless telling. Both this volume and Omissi focus predominantly on Latin panegyrics of the ‘long’ fourth century (p. vii) though some Greek texts (Themistius, Libanius, Julian) also form part of the analyses. While there indubitably still remains work to be done on this, later panegyrics from the eastern half of the empire are even less well studied; if we hope to understand truly the genre, however, these have to be taken into account, be they in Latin (Priscianus, Corippus) or Greek (Procopius of Gaza, Dioscurus of Aphrodite, George of Pisidia). The volume under review explicitly does not set out to do this, and that is perfectly legitimate. It is an important and successful contribution to the field and is warmly recommended to scholars engaging with late antique emperors and emperorship. Let us hope that a follow-up dealing with the same themes in later centuries will happen soon.
