This monograph, an adaptation of O.’s 2013 doctoral thesis, is concerned with exploring how panegyrics can be used to understand imperial legitimacy in the face of usurpation in the period between ad 284–395. O. clearly sets out his methodology and approaches the notoriously difficult genre of imperial panegyric in a novel and convincing manner.
The volume is arranged in two parts. These are subsequently organised into a series of case studies. The first part serves as an extended introduction for the work. Chapter 1 defines imperial legitimacy and its issues in a tumultuous period. Chapter 2 is arguably (and in O.’s words) the most important chapter of the work. It introduces O.’s methodology for the use of imperial panegyrics (pp. 41ff.). His approach is exemplary and provides an excellent basis for understanding a difficult genre. Here O. sets out clear and sensible parameters for his study.
Part 2 offers a series of chronological case studies. Chapter 3 provides a description of the breakdown of the remainder of the volume. Chapter 4 deals with the changes of imperial power and legitimacy that came with the instatement of Diocletian's tetrarchy in ad 293. O. discusses the usurpation of the ‘pirate’ Carausius and the subsequent fall of the Gallic empire. He notes that the panegyrics on Diocletian and Maximian remain silent about the usurper until his defeat in 293, demonstrating the significance of panegyric for understanding the ‘official’ imperial image. O. shows that panegyric could effectively ‘characterise the entire nature of a rebellion’ (pp. 94–5). The same approach is extended to the intra-tetrarchic conflicts and sets the tone for the later chapters.
In Chapter 5 O. demonstrates the ways panegyric could be used to legitimise even a usurper, using the case of Constantine I. O. reminds the reader that Constantine's reign is often seen from its end, rather than the ‘series of contingencies’ (p. 103) that occurred before his sole reign. The chapter draws attention to how the panegyrics, especially Pan. Lat. 5, attempt to legitimise Constantine's ‘accession’ of 306 and normalise events through divine will (p. 114). This theme is consistent through the remainder of the chapter and the panegyric is linked to the works of Eusebius and Lactantius and their image of Constantine as the restorer of Rome following the civil war of 312. O. further demonstrates this perception of legitimacy through reference to the inscription on the Arch of Constantine. Again, O.’s argument is clear: panegyrics served to further the ‘official’ versions of events.
Chapter 6 offers a departure from the Panegyrici Latini and discusses the panegyrics delivered by Libanius, Julian and Themistius to the sons of Constantine. O. once again demonstrates the use of panegyric to further imperial legitimacy through discussion of Libanius’ Or. 59 (pp. 158ff.). O. argues that Libanius cleverly ‘obliterates’ the internal frictions of Constantius II and Constans in the early 340s, following the familial massacre of 337. O. effectively argues that Libanius justifies the actions of Constantine's sons taking their positions by force, and that this is in line with dynastic inheritance (p. 160). The focus soon returns to the issue of usurpation in the mid-fourth century, with emphasis upon the panegyrics delivered to Constantius II following the usurpations of Magnentius and Vetranio. O. refers to three panegyrics from Julian and Themistius. Both orators respond to Constantius’ imperial legitimacy following the coups. O. argues that the panegyrics serve to obliterate Magnentius’ memory, situating him as both a tyrant and barbarian and effectively blending civil war and invasion, thus exonerating Constantius (p. 172). This is a convincing argument, which O. further supports through reference to Constantius as following the example of his father. While Magnentius is effectively silenced, Vetranio, due to his support for the Constantian cause, escapes harsh criticism in the panegyrics. These instead refer to his defeat at the hands of an eloquent Constantius, rather than an army. The Julianic panegyrics are treated with appropriate caution, and O. clearly states their purpose as necessary for preserving Julian's status and position.
Chapter 7 moves on to the short reign of Julian and his need for legitimisation as a usurper following the death of Constantius II in 361. Following his acclamation in 360, O. includes reference to Julian's Letter to the Athenians and its subversion of the image of Constantius in his panegyrics. This reiterates O.’s argument that panegyric follows the ‘official’ imperial line (p. 198). O. discusses the necessity for the panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus in 362 and its use for legitimising Julian at Constantinople after the death of Constantius and the trials of Chalcedon. O. notes that the image of Julian propagated by Mamertinus is very much in line with the overall public persona presented by Julian and skirts around any reference to the planned civil war (p. 210). O. also compares Mamertinus’ panegyrics with those delivered by Libanius, which equally avoided mention of the civil war.
Chapter 8 considers the reigns of Jovian and the Valentinian dynasts and the usurpation of Procopius. O. discusses the poorly organised accession of Jovian and the strangely positive representation of his treaty with Persia found in Themistius’ Or. 5. O. attributes the appearance of the treaty in the panegyric to being in line, once again, with the emperor's desired image. Jovian's public image was further reflected in his coinage, which celebrated his ‘victory’ (p. 226). The focus then shifts to the reigns of the emperors Valens and Valentinian following the destruction of Procopius. O. argues that Themistius’ Or. 7 to Valens was unusual in that it served as an attempt to ‘heal the rift’ with the emperor following the orator's alleged consorting with Procopius (p. 235). This argument is particularly convincing, and O.’s conclusions surrounding this panegyric are well reasoned. The later discussion of Symmachus’ panegyric to Valentinian in the West displays the use of fraternal language, a key component of Valentinian public image.
Chapter 9 picks up an issue that had not been apparent in the reigns of Valens and Valentinian: the alleged disunity between Theodosius I and the young Gratian. O. shows the importance of panegyric for demonstrating contemporary imperial issues. The panegyric to Gratian from Ausonius omits any mention of Gratian's western counterpart. O. supplements this idea with further ancient evidence, which indicates that Ausonius’ omission of the elder emperor was no accident and indeed reflective of Gratian's emperorship (pp. 258–9). The same theme is apparent in O.’s discussion of Pacatus’ panegyric to Theodosius in Pan. Lat. 2. The relationship between Theodosius and the usurper Magnus Maximus reflects the issues surrounding the usurper, whose reign had led to the demise of Gratian. O. notes the strange nature of the text, which frequently refers to the usurper by name rather than allusion (p. 283).
The last two chapters serve as a conclusion. Chapter 10 discusses the end of the use of panegyric as a tool for imperial legitimacy, outlining the change in the nature of Roman imperial rule with the rise of the child-emperors. Chapter 11 neatly wraps up the key themes of the book, in particular the idea that any emperor could be imperator or tyrannus, even if a usurper.
O.’s monograph provides a welcome approach to imperial panegyric that is well established through his examination of its use for constructing imperial legitimacy. The text is let down by a number of typographical errors and, in some cases, the confusion of names. O. confuses the emperor Maxentius (306–312) with the usurper Magnentius (350–353) on p. 72, and the emperor Maximian with Magnus Maximus several times between pp. 81–2. Other than these infelicities, O. has produced a novel and welcome approach to the tumultuous fourth century. His masterful use of panegyric as evidence of imperial legitimacy is a useful addition to scholarship on both the fourth century and panegyric collectively. It can be strongly recommended for both students and specialists of this period.
