The book under review is a much-needed study on one of the crucial constituents of the collection of Panegyrici Latini XII, the speech by Nazarius to Constantine the Great in a.d. 321. The twelve speeches enjoy a growing attention in academic research, not only as a source for the political climate during the tetrarchy and Constantine's reign (from which nine speeches of the collection stem), but also as precious specimens of rhetorical ability in the late third and fourth centuries. Commentaries on some individual speeches have appeared in several languages, to which the present book is a valuable addition.
L.’s approach is philological in the broader sense of the word: text, historical context and literary art are equally acknowledged. The introduction places the text in its historical and rhetorical context, and summarises some fruits of L.’s research, such as Nazarius’ preferences and particularities in wording, listed on pp. 49–50. For example, a predilection for words ending with -trix and -tudo may be observed, as well as the stylistic features of praeteritio and sententiae (to which might have been added such frequent phenomena as tricolon and comparatio – ‘paragone prediletto’, p. 335). To a much lesser extent, Nazarius' text is placed within the corpus of panegyrics itself. The focus is more on explaining Nazarius' originality – if not uniqueness – than on explaining the connections with other similar products of late imperial rhetoric. Therefore, Pacatus' apparent use of Nazarius' model, and the final editor's use of the speech to create a coherent collection (recently studied by T.D. Barnes, Constantine [2011], pp. 181–4, who attributed a similar role to Nazarius in compiling a collection of seven speeches, as Pacatus might have done for twelve) is hardly taken into account.
This one-sided focus has its advantages, in that it fully explores the Classical texts on which Nazarius appears to rely so heavily. Cicero, Livy and Virgil are often quoted as parallels for expressions encountered in Nazarius, although it is not always clear whether these authors may have informed the text directly or whether they are simply meant to clarify the classical overtones of the vocabulary. What especially struck me is the frequent quotation of Valerius Maximus, who might have served as a source for more late-antique authors, but whose presence as a model in Late Antiquity has hardly been proven in research. The frequent presence in the commentary of this narrator of exempla from famous men, informing many Classical Latin parallels in the commentary, is tantalising and needs further theoretical support and explanation. The quest for parallels in Classical Latin is often unsupported. For example, for the expression amplius atque augustius, applied to the magnitude of supernatural limbs, Varro and Quintilian are quoted as parallels (p. 195) – the expression, however, occurs in Livy 1.7 ampliorem augustioremque humana (sc. forma), which is a far more apt context, and therefore also a more probable (even direct) source for Nazarius than those quoted by L. The less canonical authors might have deserved better explanation than the canonical authors, who served as sources and models beyond doubt.
The more or less implicit reason for L.’s working method is the attempt to find out where Nazarius applied innovative language (‘un’ innovazione’, p. 91, ‘espressione nuova’, p. 195, ‘una formula nuova’, p. 239 etc.), for which the Thesaurus linguae Latinae has been used as the obvious tool. There are many instances in which the innovative language of Nazarius is elucidated on a lexical level, however without taking into account the fact that only a small portion of Latin literature has been transmitted to us today. Another aspect of Nazarius' innovation is the strikingly sonorous sound-effects by alliteration, assonance or homoioteleuton (note, for example, the collocation vi et virtute in 17.3 or letter-plays as in 16.4 Tu , imperator optime, inito principatu , introducing other tu-words as (im)maturus and virtute) and rhythmic variations, to which no attention is paid at all. Anaphora of tu (as remarked on p. 220) might well have been illustrated with the contemporaneous Christian poem Laudes domini, ll. 46–9.
Another poet that could have illustrated many of Nazarius' expressions and themes is his contemporary Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius, author of panegyrics on Constantine and his sons (Nazarius' main theme), who has been studied in recent years with growing intensity. His eighth poem illustrates the dynasty founded by Constantine, by also paying attention to his father Constantius and alleged ancestor Claudius Gothicus, the latter of whom is conspicuously absent in the speech (as is well remarked on p. 199: ‘di cui … non troviamo più traccia’), but apparently not in this era. Also lacking is the Neoplatonic substrate, possibly taken from Porphyry's treatises on Plotinus, that pervades Nazarius' cosmic view with its higher Nous above a mortal earth and all kinds of spirits in between, at the top of which the divinely inspired emperor dwells (witness e.g. caput 14). Terminology such as de caelo lapsi, for heavenly creatures, to support Constantine may stem from this same philosophical domain.
In her treatment of recent research, L. presents a broad range of scholars, whose opinions are carefully brought forward without, however, indicating which side in the discussion is to be preferred. This cautious position is to be regretted in the discussion of the religious stance of the orator, who acts just as the other panegyrists ‘che non fanno emergere apertamente la predilezione dell’ imperatore per uno specifico credo religioso’ (p. 197). In her analysis of the much discussed divino instinctu (17.1) several opinions are summed up, with ambiguous outcome, but without the crucial contribution by N. Lenski (2008), whose work is cited in the bibliography, but not in this particular place in the commentary. His view that the expression is purely pagan makes the translation ‘ispirazione’ (p. 227), with its Christian overtones, arguable. The answer to the vexed question of the religious position of the panegyrists may not be given satisfactorily in a commentary of this type, but there is room for more assertive choices.
The study provides the text as constituted by D. Lassandro (1992), without translation, although the notes sometimes offer a translation of brief passages. This lack of interpretative help, as well as the lack of an index, decreases the volume's user-friendliness, but also deprives of the possibility to check at one glance which Classical or contemporaneous authors have mostly been used as sources or models. It may be regretted that scholars who dip into the text may be hindered by the accessibility of the individual parts or the whole. The bibliography provides a broad palette of recent studies, in which female scholars (though not all of them) are indicated by their first names followed by their surnames, while the male scholars' first names are indicated by initials. I noted some typos especially in the case of the letter i (mmagine, p. 264, crostiane, pp. 196 and 254, Lensky, p. 457 etc.). I missed N. Baglivi's study (Bollettino di Studi Latini 30 [2000]).
My enumeration of the aspects that have been treated less, or less accurately, may conceal the undeniable fact that I read the book with fruition and admiration for L.’s philological acumen with regard to the text, which she masters in great detail. Hardly any lemma is disappointing, always providing interesting material for comparison (a bit too much to my taste) and broad ranges of parallel texts and studies. There is still work to be done for the placing of the text in its contemporary situation, but it has to be acknowledged that no commentary, even voluminous philological-historical ones, can tackle all aspects at once. As a means to deepen knowledge and appreciation of Nazarius' rhetorical art, the book is a valuable addition to the thriving study of Latin panegyric and of late-antique literature and history. L. shows herself worthy of the laudes she has elucidated.
