Emperors and Rhetoricians: Panegyric, Communication, and Power in the Fourth-Century Roman Empire (Volume 65) (Transformation of the Classical Heritage) 9780520394971, 9780520394988, 0520394976

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
List of Illustrations
Preface and Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Maps
Introduction. Emperors, Rhetoricians, and Panegyric
(Re)constructing Julian
The Panegyrist-Caesar at Work
Praise-Giving, Philosophy, Politics, and Genre
Reading Panegyrics: Methodology
Communication and Power: Panegyric as Political Prose
Praise Operationalized
1. Panegyric, Paideia, and the (De)construction of the Emperor’s Image and Power: Themistius, Julian, and Constantius, ca. 350–356 CE
A Literary and Political Apparitor: Themistius as Panegyrist and Senator
A Political and Literary Apparitor: Julian as Caesar and Panegyrist
Conclusion
2. Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation: Julian, Themistius, and Constantius in the West, 357–359
Eusebia and Constantius: Binary Praise, Communication, and Patronage
Representing Constantinople: Constantius and Themistius at Rome
Venturing on Self-Glorification: Julian as Caesar and Self-Promoter
Conclusion
3. Laudatiua Materia : Panegyric, History, and Legitimization in a Period of Imperial Transition, 360–361
Res gestae: Between History and Panegyric
Confronting Constantius: The Epistle as Apology, Polemic, Autobiography, and Auto-Panegyric
Conclusion
4. Panegyric, Consensus, and the Reinforcement of Nascent Government: Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Julian in Constantinople, 361–362
The Native Son Returns: Reconciling the West and the East after Civil War
Himerius and Julian: Refounding Constantinople and Relating New Policy
Conclusion
5. Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement: Libanius and Julian in Antioch, 362–363
Administering the East by Epistle-Edicts
Libanius and Julian: Curating and Promoting New Policy
Administering Antioch: Emperor, Populace, and (Lack of) Consensus
Conclusion
Conclusion. Emperors, Rhetoricians, and the Usefulness of Praise
Appendix A. The Date of Themistius’s Oration 1
Appendix B. Julian, an Experienced Soldier before His Promotion to Caesar?
Appendix C. The Date of Julian’s Oration 1
Appendix D. Some Emperors’ Residencies at and Responses to Antioch
Works Cited
Index

Citation preview

The publisher and the University of California Press Foundation gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature.

Emperors and Rhetoricians

TRANSFORMATION OF THE CLASSICAL HERITAGE Peter Brown, General Editor

I. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, by Sabine G. MacCormack II. Synesius of Cyrene: Philosopher-Bishop, by Jay Alan Bregman



III. Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity, by Kenneth G. Holum



IV. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century, by Robert L. Wilken



V. Biography in Late Antiquity: The Quest for the Holy Man, by Patricia Cox



VI. Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt, by Philip Rousseau



VII. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, by A. P. Kazhdan and Ann Wharton Epstein



VIII. Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul, by Raymond Van Dam IX. Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition, by Robert Lamberton X. Procopius and the Sixth Century, by Averil Cameron XI. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, by Robert A. Kaster XII. Civic Coins and Civic Politics in the Roman East, a.d. 180–275, by Kenneth Harl



XIII. Holy Women of the Syrian Orient, introduced and translated by Sebastian P. Brock and Susan Ashbrook Harvey



XIV. Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection, by Carole Straw



XV. “Apex Omnium”: Religion in the “Res gestae” of Ammianus, by R. L. Rike



XVI. Dioscorus of Aphrodito: His Work and His World, by Leslie S. B. MacCoull



XVII. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity, by Michele Renee Salzman

XVIII. Asceticism and Society in Crisis: John of Ephesus and “The Lives of the Eastern Saints,” by Susan Ashbrook Harvey

XIX. Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius, by Alan Cameron and Jacqueline Long, with a contribution by Lee Sherry XX. Basil of Caesarea, by Philip Rousseau XXI. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini, introduction, translation, and historical commentary by C. E. V. Nixon and Barbara Saylor Rodgers XXII. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital, by Neil B. McLynn

XXIII. Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity, by Richard Lim

XXIV. The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy, by Virginia Burrus



XXV. Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontius’s “Life” and the Late Antique City, by Derek Krueger

XXVI. The Shadows of Poetry: Vergil in the Mind of Augustine, by Sabine MacCormack XXVII. Paulinus of Nola: Life, Letters, and Poems, by Dennis E. Trout XXVIII. The Barbarian Plain: Saint Sergius between Rome and Iran, by Elizabeth Key Fowden XXIX. The Private Orations of Themistius, translated, annotated, and introduced by Robert J. Penella

XXX. The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity, by Georgia Frank

XXXI. Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity, edited by Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau XXXII. Subtle Bodies: Representing Angels in Byzantium, by Glenn Peers XXXIII. Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity, by Daniel Caner XXXIV. Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century a.d., by Noel Lenski XXXV. Merovingian Mortuary Archaeology and the Making of the Early Middle Ages, by Bonnie Effros XXXVI. Qus. ayr ‘Amra: Art and the Umayyad Elite in Late Antique Syria, by Garth Fowden XXXVII. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, by Claudia Rapp XXXVIII. Encountering the Sacred: The Debate on Christian Pilgrimage in Late Antiquity, by Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony XXXIX. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire, by Michael Gaddis

XL. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq, by Joel Thomas Walker XLI. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria, by Edward J. Watts



XLII. Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory Imagination, by Susan Ashbrook Harvey



XLIII. Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius, edited by Robert J. Penella



XLIV. The Matter of the Gods, by Clifford Ando



XLV. The Two Eyes of the Earth: Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran, by Matthew P. Canepa



XLVI. Riot in Alexandria: Tradition and Group Dynamics in Late Antique Pagan and Christian Communities, by Edward J. Watts

XLVII. Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, by Leslie Dossey XLVIII. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria, by Adam M. Schor



XLIX. Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome, by Susanna Elm



L. Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty: Rural Patronage, Religious Conflict, and Monasticism in Late Antique Egypt, by Ariel G. López



LI. Doctrine and Power: Theological Controversy and Christian Leadership in the Later Roman Empire, by Carlos R. Galvão-Sobrinho



LII. Crisis of Empire: Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity, by Phil Booth



LIII. The Final Pagan Generation: Rome’s Unexpected Path to Christianity, by Edward J. Watts



LIV. The Mirage of the Saracen: Christians and Nomads in the Sinai Peninsula in Late Antiquity, by Walter D. Ward



LV. Missionary Stories and the Formation of the Syriac Churches, by Jeanne-Nicole Mellon Saint-Laurent LVI. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity, by Richard E. Payne LVII. Constantine and the Captive Christians of Persia: Martyrdom and Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, by Kyle Smith



LVIII. In the Image of Origen: Eros, Virtue, and Constraint in the Early Christian Academy, by David Satran



LVIX. Being Christian in Vandal Africa: The Politics of Orthodoxy in the Post-Imperial West, by Robin Whelan



LX. The Wandering Holy Man: The Life of Barsauma, Christian Asceticism, and Religious Conflict in Late Antique Palestine, edited by Johannes Hahn and Volker Menze



LXI. The Life of the Syrian Saint Barsauma: Eulogy of a Hero of the Resistance to the Council of Chalcedon, translated by Andrew N. Palmer



LXII. The Rich and the Pure: Philanthropy and the Making of Christian Society in Early Byzantium, by Daniel Caner



LXIII. What Makes a Church Sacred? Legal and Ritual Perspectives from Late Antiquity, by Mary K. Farag



LXIV. Wealth, Poverty, and Charity in Jewish Antiquity, by Gregg. E Gardner



LXV. Emperors and Rhetoricians: Panegyric, Communication, and Power in the FourthCentury Roman Empire, by Moysés Marcos

Emperors and Rhetoricians Panegyric, Communication, and Power in the Fourth-Century Roman Empire

Moysés Marcos

UNIVERSIT Y OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

University of California Press Oakland, California © 2023 by Moysés Marcos Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Marcos, Moysés, author. Title: Emperors and rhetoricians : panegyric, communication, and power  in the fourth-century Roman Empire / Moysés Marcos. Other titles: Transformation of the classical heritage ; 65. Description: [Oakland, California] : University of California Press, [2023] |  Series: Transformation of the classical heritage ; lxv | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2023020733 (print) | lccn 2023020734 (ebook) |  isbn 9780520394971 (cloth) | isbn 9780520394988 (ebook) Subjects: lcsh: Julian, Emperor of Rome, 331–363—Criticism and  interpretation. | Laudatory poetry—History and criticism. Classification: lcc pa4225.j6 m37 2023 (print) | lcc pa4225.j6 (ebook) |  ddc 808.5/109—dc23/eng/20230802 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023020733 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023020734 32  31  30  29  28  27  26  25  24  23 10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

Reinaldoni auo parentibusque caris meis, quorum amorem, curam, incitamentum discendi ego semper reddere nitar.

c ontents

List of Illustrations Preface and Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations Maps

xi xiii xv xvi

Introduction. Emperors, Rhetoricians, and Panegyric

1



(Re)constructing Julian

3



The Panegyrist-Caesar at Work

7



Praise-Giving, Philosophy, Politics, and Genre

9



Reading Panegyrics: Methodology

11



Communication and Power: Panegyric as Political Prose

15



Praise Operationalized

22

1. Panegyric, Paideia, and the (De)construction of the Emperor’s Image and Power: Themistius, Julian, and Constantius, ca. 350–356 CE

29



A Literary and Political Apparitor: Themistius as Panegyrist and Senator

34



A Political and Literary Apparitor: Julian as Caesar and Panegyrist

48



Conclusion

62

2. Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation: Julian, Themistius, and Constantius in the West, 357–359

65



68

Eusebia and Constantius: Binary Praise, Communication, and Patronage



Representing Constantinople: Constantius and Themistius at Rome



Venturing on Self-Glorification: Julian as Caesar and Self-Promoter

88



Conclusion

101

3. Laudatiua Materia : Panegyric, History, and Legitimization in a Period of Imperial Transition, 360–361

Res gestae: Between History and Panegyric

79

103 107

Confronting Constantius: The Epistle as Apology, Polemic, Autobiography, and Auto-Panegyric

126



143

Conclusion

4. Panegyric, Consensus, and the Reinforcement of Nascent Government: Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Julian in Constantinople, 361–362

145



The Native Son Returns: Reconciling the West and the East after Civil War

149



Himerius and Julian: Refounding Constantinople and Relating New Policy

176



Conclusion

182

5. Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement: Libanius and Julian in Antioch, 362–363

185



Administering the East by Epistle-Edicts

188



Libanius and Julian: Curating and Promoting New Policy

191



Administering Antioch: Emperor, Populace, and (Lack of) Consensus

204



Conclusion

222

Conclusion. Emperors, Rhetoricians, and the Usefulness of Praise

225

Appendix A. The Date of Themistius’s Oration 1 Appendix B. Julian, an Experienced Soldier before His Promotion to Caesar? Appendix C. The Date of Julian’s Oration 1 Appendix D. Some Emperors’ Residencies at and Responses to Antioch Works Cited Index

239 243 245 249 253 275

illustrati ons

MAPS

Following page xv. 1. Major Battles during the Fourth-Century Roman Empire 2. Lutetia Parisiorum, Paris 3. Byzantine Constantinople 4. Antioch (Syria) F IG U R E S

1. Constantius II standing in a chariot and distributing largesse on gold coinage  44 2. Constantius advertising himself as consul at Rome in 357 with Roma and Constantinopolis seated and proclaiming FELICITAS ROMANORVM on gold coinage  83 3. Julian wearing a diadem and promoting Victoria on behalf of himself and Constantius as fellow Augusti on silver coinage  118 4. Julian as Augustus advertising the valor of the Western army on gold coinage  130 5. Julian as sole Augustus advertising the valor of the Western and Eastern armies on gold coinage  172 6. Julian proclaiming SECVRITAS REI PVB(LICAE) with a bull on bronze coinage  173

xi

preface and ack nowled gme nts

In searches for consensus, historical knowledge and understanding advance through debate, that is, through conflict. Such advancement requires new connections and configurations of what is extant in order to provide new images for interpretation. Theory can certainly help us to see old problems in new ways; yet I remain largely undertheorized. So, as readers will discover, the methodological approach taken in this book is largely a “traditional” one; it consists of first fashioning the “bricks” and then the “superstructure” of a historical narrative. By “bricks,” I mean dates, locations, vocabulary, offices, responsibilities, relations with and to contemporaries, and so on (“facts,” or “truth” in the lower case), the material with which a historical foundation is built that then allows for propositions of purpose, for construction of an edifice and a roof, as the emperor Julian might have put it (Jul. Ep. 3 Wright [8 Bidez] 441D). But, as Keith Hopkins (1978: 182) cautioned, such bricks do not always constitute hard facts or evidence, and “the wall one builds (with testimony as bricks) may be in the wrong place and of the wrong design.” Thus, in assessing panegyrics both by and to Julian, “walls” have been carefully assembled; it has been my consistent practice to read text closely and critically, so much so that in many places my analysis takes the form of textual commentary. This is as it should be. Before we evaluate a forest we should consider the trees. In 2006, when I was a bookseller at a Borders bookstore, I, like so many others, first became acquainted with Julian through Gore Vidal’s historical novel Julian, which then opened a door to Julian’s own writings, the historical narrative of Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius’s panegyrics and letters, and the invectives of Gregory of Nazianzus, so mordantly portrayed by Vidal. This door ultimately xiii

xiv      Preface and Acknowledgments

opened another in September 2011, when I chose to continue studying the emperor and his empire at the University of California, Riverside. The following pages owe a great deal to several scholars and colleagues, past and present. The current study, in its primordial form, benefited from the supervision of Michele Salzman, in addition to input from Denver Graninger and Tom Scanlon, who offered numerous helpful suggestions and comments. The book before you is the result of substantial revisions since September 2017. No new chapters have been added, but each has been refined considerably. Peter Brown and Susanna Elm read my manuscript for the University of California Press and offered many remarks that allowed me to improve it in several respects, to clarify my methodology and arguments, as well as to condense, to “trim the fat,” as I put it. Eric Schmidt has been a supportive editor and even an energetic advocate. And LeKeisha Hughes helped to put all the pieces together. To all I offer a solemn gratiarum actionem. Of course, all shortcomings remain my own, including areas where the textual body is not as toned as it might be. What lies before you, robust or otherwise, shows both Julian and panegyric in a new but not altogether unfamiliar light, and it will surely spark debate.

abbreviati ons

All abbreviations of ancient or primary sources follow the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE), vol. 1, A.D. 260–395, ed. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, and J. Morris (Cambridge, 1975) or the Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth, and E. Eidinow, 4th ed (Oxford, 2012). All abbreviations of academic journals or secondary sources follow L’année philologique. The following abbreviations do not appear in the reference works above. Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, ed. R. S. Bagnall, A. Cameron, S. R. Schwartz, and K. A. Worp (Atlanta, 1987) Consul. Const. The Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, ed. R. W. Burgess (Oxford, 1993) Fest. Festus, Abrégé des hauts faits du peuple romain, ed. M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet (Paris, 1994) GLL A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D., ed. A. Souter (Oxford, 1996) OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. G. W. Glare, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2012) Philostorg. Philostorgios, Kirchengeschichte, ed. B. Bleckmann and M. Stein, 2 vols. (Paderborn, 2015) Ps.-Aur. Vict. Pseudo-Aurélius Victor, Abrégé des Césars, ed. M. Festy (Paris, 1999) CLRE

xv

map 1 . Major Battles during the Fourth-Century Roman Empire. Drawn by the Ancient World Mapping Center at the University of North Carolina.

1 Île de la Cité 2 Julian’s headquarters 3 Theatre 4 Temple of Jupiter

Lutetia Parisiorum (Paris)

N

35 m and below 35–45 m 45–55 m 55 m and above

Sequana Camp of the Petulantes? 2

1

Cluny baths 3

Forum complex

3

4

Cemetery Cemetery 0 J.F. Drinkwater

500 m

map 2 . Lutetia Parisiorum, Paris. Drawn by the Ancient World Mapping Center at the University of North Carolina.

map 3 . Byzantine Constantinople. Drawn by the Ancient World Mapping Center at the University of North Carolina.

map 4 . Antioch (Syria). Drawn by the Ancient World Mapping Center at the University of North Carolina.

Introduction Emperors, Rhetoricians, and Panegyric

The Roman Empire was the largest multiethnic state in the ancient Mediterranean world. In the fourth century CE, it stretched from what is today northern England to Morocco and from Portugal to northern Iraq. In such a vast and complex state, the potential for crises to erupt that could destabilize society was real. This had been the case between 235 and 284, when the Roman world was subjected to regional rebellions, civil wars, foreign invasions, and political and economic instability. One of the factors contributing to these crises in the third century was Roman subjects’ perception of the emperor as physically distant and administratively detached from their everyday concerns. It was only with great difficulty that emperors during this period maintained their hold on power and territory for any length of time. The empire and emperor that emerged after 284 were more integrated and more interdependent than ever before. This was the era of big armies and “big government,”1 and it was against this backdrop that imperial panegyrics, speeches of praise on emperors, became increasingly important. Speeches celebrating emperors played a significant political role in this period, with speechmakers serving as conduits to communities and elites and facilitating emperors’ public images and imperial administrations, sometimes directly as both panegyrists and high officeholders. In summer 337, few contemporaries could have predicted that Flavius Claudius Iulianus, who witnessed the massacre of much of his family in Constantinople at about age six, would produce speeches of praise on the very man responsible for 1.  E.g., MacMullen 1967: 49–76 and 1976; Drinkwater 2005; Lo Cascio 2005. Lactantius describes this new era polemically but not inaccurately (DMP 7).

1

2      Introduction

that massacre: his cousin Constantius II.2 Fewer still could have predicted that he would do so while helping to govern part of the empire as Caesar (Deputy Emperor) alongside this same man, and then succeed him to rule the entire empire in his own right. In light of the massacre above, his speeches on Constantius are also remarkable for their image management and diplomacy, as we shall see below. Julian, as he is known to us, was the last member of the Constantinian dynasty to rule over the entire empire.3 Further, he performed many roles as emperor: “the military commander, the theosophist, the social reformer, and the man of letters.”4 And he continues to fascinate in the nearly seventeen hundred years since his death on 26 June 363.5 This sustained fascination is due in no small part to Julian’s diverse and elegant writings in Greek, which received new life in numerous editions during the Renaissance.6 Interest in the orations and letters increased in the eighteenth century, with the publication of some of the first modern biographies of Julian.7 In fact, we have more material from Julian’s pen than from any other Roman emperor (or rather more writing attributed to him; notarii, or secretaries, would have been responsible for producing most of Julian’s literary output, at his direction).8 His earliest and most notable works are two panegyrics addressed to Constantius and a third to the latter’s wife, Eusebia, that belong to a unique class: capably constructed speeches by one emperor, a Caesar, for his Augustus (Emperor). There is also the Epistle to the Athenians, which Julian wrote later as part of a public relations offensive during his brief civil war with the same Constantius. Altogether, we have ten orations, two political pamphlets/essays in the form of epistles, and other variously complete or fragmentary letters written by Julian that number over one hundred in Joseph Bidez’s magisterial edition.9

2.  Kienast 1996: 314–17, 323–25. For Julian’s date of birth, see chapter 1, n. 22. On Constantius’s culpability in the massacre of much of the imperial family in 337, see Burgess 2008 and Marcos 2014. 3.  For introductions to Julian, see Hunt 1998 and Fontaine 2013. For a small sample of studies on Julian, see Bidez 1965, Browning 1978, Klein 1978, Bowersock 1978, Athanassiadi 1992, Tougher 2007, Baker-Brian and Tougher 2012, and Rebenich and Wiemer 2020. The last Constantinian to rule was Constantia Postuma, who reigned as Western empress (see McEvoy 2016). 4.  Downey 1939: 305. Cf. Lib. Or. 18, 176, for Julian as “priest, writer, seer, judge, soldier and universal saviour, all in one” (trans. Norman). 5.  On the fascination with Julian, see Tougher 2007: 3–11; and Rebenich and Wiemer 2020: 1–12. 6.  On Julian’s Nachleben, see Rebenich 2020. 7.  See Rebenich and Wiemer 2020: 13–29. 8.  On Julian’s manuscript tradition, see Bidez 1929 and Prato 2013. On Julian’s letter collection, see Trapp 2012 and Elm 2017. On Julian’s philosophical and political epistolography and its cultural milieu, see Marcos 2018a. 9.  Bidez 1924. Bidez also preserves a fair amount of apocrypha and letters of doubtful authenticity that raise Julian’s epistolary corpus to over two hundred pieces. See also Wright 1923 and Prato 2013.

Introduction    3

Those who have written about the emperor have naturally focused on his voluminous writings in attempts to (re)construct the “historical” Julian. Prominent among these writings is Julian’s extant correspondence, which has been described as a broken mirror that reflects the figure of the emperor well.10 But we should be careful with this broken mirror, for emperors were complex figures who used their writings to project skillfully constructed images of themselves to the contemporary public and to posterity, few of which should be accepted at face value. We can say, however, that Julian’s first three orations are now finding, or rather rediscovering, their place as valuable tesserae in efforts to restore the complex mosaic of his personality.11 We should note, in addition, that emperors’ writings responded to issues and circumstances that were themselves complex. This is not to say that we can never understand the public personality and motivations of historical figures such as Julian, rather that private aspects of who they were are necessarily hidden from us, and so we should approach them as the complicated individuals they no doubt were instead of painting them with broad brushstrokes. “For,” as Julian himself put it in a letter to his friend Philip shortly after becoming sole emperor in November 361, “it is often impracticable to make one’s language harmonise with one’s real sentiments [in writing].”12 ( R E ) C O N S T RU C T I N G J U L IA N

Not unlike the fourth-century rhetorician and bishop Gregory of Nazianzus, whose two invectives on the emperor proved so influential,13 some modern scholars have tended to see Julian as something of a duplicitous figure as Caesar, and later, as sole emperor, as a religious zealot, and a “puritanical pagan,” because of his rejection of Christianity and his support for the cultus deorum (worship of the gods).14 On the other hand, others have been empathetic and even somewhat sympathetic.15 Taking all of this into consideration, it is evident that we have a good deal to gain from a more balanced approach to Julian, that we should take greater stock of the known and unknown and consider nuanced positions in attempting 10.  Alonso-Nuñez 1972: 55. 11.  Pagliara 2015: 109. Cf. Brunt 1988: 89. See also Fontaine 2013: LXX–LXXVII (“chi fu Giuliano?”). 12.  Ep. 30 Wright (40 Bidez): οὐ γὰρ ἐθέλει πολλάκις ὁμολογεῖν ἡ γλῶττα τῇ διανοίᾳ (trans. Wright). 13.  On which, see Elm 2012: 336–77 (Or. 4) and 433–77 (Or. 5). 14.  E.g., Müller-Seidel 1955, for Julian as Caesar consciously planning usurpation; Bowersock 1978, chap. 8, titled “The Puritanical Pagan”; and Rosen 2006, chap. 9, “Der Verlierer” (The Loser). Bowersock 1978 has been an influential libellus. 15.  See Bidez 1965; Browning 1978; and Athanassiadi 1992: vii–xv, esp. x, for her adroit response to Bowersock’s review, in which she is placed alongside the praise-giving Libanius, by likening Bowersock to the condemnatory Ephrem the Syrian.

4      Introduction

to (re)construct his or any emperor’s portrait in all its complexity—in sum, we should always leave room for some doubt. To some of his contemporaries, such as Gregory of Nazianzus, his detractor, and Ammianus Marcellinus, his admirer, Julian was a somewhat eccentric public figure.16 Thus we should not neglect Julian’s peculiarities in assessing him, his acts, and his motives as emperor. But neither should we focus on his eccentricity, religious or otherwise, to the exclusion of other features of his public personality and his reign, which was quite traditional, particularly in the administrative sphere.17 Scholars have focused more on Julian the imperial pontifex and theologian than on Julian the politician in other contexts. For example, Julian’s panegyrics, both those by him and to him, thus his roles within imperial government as a distributor (Caesar) and a recipient (sole Augustus) of praise, two distinct and critical aspects of his public career, have not been explored and considered comprehensively.18 Nor have these speeches been considered fully alongside those of his contemporary the rhetorician-senator Themistius. By closely considering all of Julian’s panegyrics, in which his idiosyncrasies and traditionalism are on full display, we can gain greater insight into Julian himself and into panegyric as a form of elite communication during the fourth-century Roman Empire. In short, like his complicated uncle Constantine, Julian had many faces,19 and only some of these faces have been studied. To be sure, imperial panegyrics as a genre have not been neglected. They have often been mined for “facts” about emperors, about their deeds, images, policies, ideologies, and courts,20 and explored for the form and function of their narratives and underlying methods.21 Studies on panegyrics have even taken the form of 16.  E.g., Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 23; Amm. 22.7.2, for Julian fining himself ten pounds of gold after infringing on a prerogative of the consul Claudius Mamertinus; 22.7.3, for Julian’s disregard of his station and unseemly rush (exsiluit indecore et qui esset oblitus) out of the senate house of Constantinople to embrace the philosopher Maximus of Ephesus in early 362; cf. Lib. Or. 18, 154–56. See Amm. 22.10.2, for Julian as chief judge sometimes asking, at an unsuitable moment, what each one of the litigants before him worshipped (quid quisque iurgantium coleret, tempore alieno interrogans); Lib. Or. 1, 129. 17.  See Pack 1986, Brendel 2017, and Schmidt-Hofner 2020, who focus on Julian’s extant legislation and conclude that he was largely not a reformer; López Sánchez 2012, who sees a very Constantinian emperor on Julian’s coin issues; and Marcos 2019b, for Julian’s trenchant and largely traditional treatment of Christians. 18.  For individual studies on Julian’s panegyrics, see Tantillo 1997: 11–50 (Or. 1); Tougher 2012 (Or. 1); García Ruiz 2012 (Or. 2) and 2015 (Orr. 1 and 2); Drake 2012 (Or. 3); Pagliara 2015 (Orr. 1 and 3); Alvino 2016 (Or. 3); and Ross 2018b (Or. 1). For past approaches to Julian, see Rebenich and Wiemer 2020: 12–29. 19.  Constantine’s words and deeds as emperor offer useful comparanda for Julian’s. For discussion and analysis of the “many faces of Constantine,” see Lenski 2016: 1–23. 20.  E.g., Straub 1964, esp. 146–74; A. Cameron 1970; MacCormack 1990; Vanderspoel 1995; Wiemer 1995; Rees 2002; Wienand 2012a; Omissi 2018; and Ross 2018b. 21.  E.g., Maguinness 1932 and 1933; Bartsch 2012; and Rees 2010.

Introduction    5

meta-discourse.22 Sabine MacCormack read them as a way to understand imperial art and ceremonial and the imperial ideal better, and in so doing highlighted their prominent role in late antique cultural and political life among the elite.23 References in the correspondence of Libanius—who was a prominent rhetorician and panegyrist from Antioch—to copies of imperial panegyrics in circulation and to his requests for such copies are suggestive of the importance of such praise-giving.24 Like coin issues from imperial mints at Rome, Sirmium, Constantinople, and Antioch (see map 1), and imperial pronouncements issued at and to the same cities, among others, imperial speeches of praise were part of the “communicative actions” of Roman government that sought to foster loyalty to it among provincials.25 In discussing the workings of panegyric and its relation to Roman imperial administration in the fourth century, I follow the view that Latin imperial panegyric was not a mere display of flattery before a Roman emperor but an integral part of how Roman government functioned.26 In fact, “flattery” and “arguments” were some of the most potent (and nonviolent) prerogatives and tools that emperors used to achieve their ends,27 and panegyrists could tap into the power of these same tools and reverse its flow on behalf of their own interests, or at least appear to. Panegyric represented a vital oral and literary medium for disseminating imperial ideology/propaganda and other messages (publicity) to the empire’s subjects, what has been termed “descending communication” (communication descendante), and, conversely, for influencing imperial ideology/propaganda and policy by means of “ascending communication” (communication ascendante).28 In short, a panegyrist was both a publicist for and a mediator with the emperor. Indeed, “diffusion” (diffusione) and “promotion” 22.  E.g., R. Flower 2013. 23.  MacCormack 1990 remains a classic exposition. 24.  Lib. Ep. 30 Norman (369 Foerster), Ep. 88 Norman (736 Foerster), Ep. 102 Norman (818 Foerster), and Ep. 116 Norman (1430 Foerster). See also n. 92 below. 25.  On these “communicative actions,” see Ando 2000, esp. 73–273. See also Hopkins 1978b: 197– 242, for emperor worship; Rees 2002, for layers of loyalty in the Latin panegyrics on the Tetrarchs; Noreña 2011a and Manders 2012, for imperial virtues and ideals via coinage; and Hekster 2015: 25–38, for imperial representation and “media.” 26.  Espoused by Sabbah 1984, in his influential article and subsequently adopted by Rees 2002, 2012. On Roman government in the later empire, see A. H. M. Jones 1986; Matthews 2007: 253–78; and C. Kelly 1998 and 2006. 27.  E.g., Euseb. HE 9.9a.2: κολακείᾳ καὶ προτροπαῖς (the praetorian prefect Sabinus on behalf of Maximinus Daza); VC 2.46–61.1, 4.55 (Constantine); Jul. Ep. ad Athen. (21 Wright, 60 Bidez) 380C: παραίνεσιν καὶ λόγους; Ruf. HE 10.33: praemiis honoribus blanditiis persuasionibus (Julian). 28.  In addition to what Sabbah (1984) has highlighted in the Latin panegyrics, note Him. Or. 48, 27–31 (Colonna), who, in a Greek panegyric to the orator and proconsul of Achaia, Hermogenes, frames communication by this means as useful in informing ruler and ruled. See also Ware 2019; and n. 25 above. On imperial ideology during late antiquity, see Kolb 2001.

6      Introduction

(promozione) have been utilized as correlative terms of such communication in a study on the Latin panegyrics on Constantine,29 in addition to reading panegyrics as means by which the imperial persona and authority were constructed in efforts at consensus-building with Roman subjects. And as the following chapters will demonstrate, consensus-building, which is not usually associated with Julian, was one of his concerns and is a prominent feature of his speeches of praise as Caesar and Augustus. The inner workings of panegyric thus can provide insights into the inner workings of Roman government and those who participated in government at a high level. And while all imperial panegyrics have common features, since there were established rules for this literary genre, as in the rhetorical handbook of Menander Rhetor, for example,30 no two speeches of praise are exactly the same. Like other forms of public speech, panegyric was a mode of political communication that reflected its subject, author, and immediate context,31 a political substance that took on the shape of its container. Moreover, the momentous occasions that these speeches consistently commemorated illustrate communication and power in the fourth-century empire best. Imperial panegyrics were constructed from material, purportedly historical, taken from the distant and the recent past, and, to a great extent, they were shaped to fit the needs of the moment.32 But such panegyrics have not been considered more prospectively in terms of what, I will argue, were their objectives in certain cases—that is, not only with an eye to the present but also to the future, to building consensus for particular political positions or postures, and alongside the motives behind them.33 A literary genre and a mode of political communication, panegyrics were one aspect of the complexity of Roman imperial government. In this study, these speeches have great potential to shed light on Julian as a Caesar and on his conception of good government as such, for his panegyrics on Constantius and Eusebia center on proper rule in the context of his governing Gaul. As sole emperor, Julian was not wholeheartedly a traditionalist or reactionary any more than any leader, ancient or modern, is all one thing or another. Instead, it would be better for us to approach Julian based on the premise that, like his predecessors and successors in imperial office, he was both traditional and innovative, depending on the issues and circumstances. 29.  Maranesi 2016: 24–26. 30.  See n. 72 below. 31.  E.g., MacCormack 1975: 159–66 and 1990: 179, for the anonymous Latin panegyrist’s flexibility and preparation for contingencies in 307; Wiemer 1995: 367–76; and Errington 2000. 32.  MacCormack 1975: 159. 33.  Cf. MacCormack 1975: 159–66 and 1990: 268–70. MacCormack saw imperial panegyrics as expressions of politics and indicators of political circumstances but not of the specific political objectives that I argue for here. See n. 98 below.

Introduction    7

Julian’s two panegyrics on his cousin Constantius are cases in point, speeches of praise that display originality and are at odds with how Julian subsequently presents Constantius in his Epistle to the Athenians during their brief civil war: as a villain of the first order. In light of the latter pronouncement, scholars have commented on Julian’s presumed insincerity in praising Constantius.34 But we should consider that, even if he did not believe in much of the substance of his Constantian speeches, Julian at least believed in the underlying purpose behind his praise to a great degree, that is, that it aided his public career, and so it need not be judged as completely disingenuous; there were often chasms between private thought and public action.35 Julian could even have believed in some of the substance behind his praise at the moment when he produced it. In any event, a panegyrist’s declaration of sincerity, such as that of the second-century Roman senator Pliny the Younger, was a stock claim.36 More important than his sincerity of speech would have been his credibility overall, that he possessed (or could claim to possess) some familiarity with his emperor,37 and thus that he possessed the authority to praise him more meaningfully than another speaker. It is in this respect, in part, that Julian’s panegyrics provide a better broken mirror or reflection of him than his letters, because the genre of panegyric had stricter rules regarding what an author could (or should) say, and so both adherence to and deviation from those rules are revealing of the complex mosaic of personality and purpose. This is not to say that panegyrics reveal exact reflections of their subjects, rather that the reflections that they do provide can help us to improve assessments and approximations of those subjects. By situating Julian within the panegyrical tradition, by assessing his approaches to praise-giving alongside those of Themistius, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius, we can gain a new understanding of emperor, empire, and genre. T H E PA N E G Y R I S T- C A E S A R AT WO R K

As Fergus Millar succinctly put it some time ago in a well-known formulation, “The emperor ‘was’ what the emperor did.”38 Millar went on to elaborate on this description of the emperor by presenting a rather reactive and static figure (from Augustus to Constantine), by conceiving of the model of “petition-and-response.”39 This model of what the emperor did has been influential. No doubt his responding to petitions was true to a great extent when one includes numerous ministers of 34.  See Wright 1913: I.3; Browning 1978: 75 (implied); and Athanassiadi 1992: 61–62. 35.  Cf. n. 61 below. 36.  Plin. Pan. 2–3. On Pliny’s art of sincerity, see Bartsch 2012, esp. 182–85. See also Pan. Lat. 6(7).7.4; Lib. Or. 59, 126; Aus. Grat. act. 2.6; Prisc. Pan. Anast. praef. 37.  Plin. Ep. 6.27.2: intellegens principis nostri; Dio Chrys. Or. 3, 2; Pan. Lat. 8(5).1.4. 3(11). 38.  Millar 1992: viii, repeated at 6. 39.  Millar 1992: 6. Cf. Hopkins 1978a.

8      Introduction

state and their secretaries, that is, those who actually responded to most petitions and who represented what “the emperor” or “government” was to its subjects. But emperors and the circumstances in which they operated were more complex than that. As sociologist and Roman historian Keith Hopkins has noted, not all emperors were equally active and interested in dispensing justice in the form of answering petitions; and there is no way that emperors read all petitions to them, as there were always other demands on their time, nor was the system in which they exercised their authority so limited and simple.40 Furthermore, emperors were not always passive, nor were they expected to be, by either emperors themselves or their subjects. Indeed, “passive” is not how we tend to think of emperors such as Augustus, Hadrian, Diocletian, and Constantine, to name but a few examples. Consequently, scholars since Hopkins have revised Millar’s model in the course of revisiting the reigns of these and other emperors.41 Julian was a particularly energetic (and educated) ruler, and his usefulness as another corrective to Millar’s emperor, I will argue, is manifest in his three imperial panegyrics on Constantius and Eusebia, all of which appear to have been produced both actively and voluntarily. Indeed, these speeches of praise allow for a close study of a rare breed of historical actor: the panegyrist-Caesar at work. Why did Julian produce panegyrics? How exactly did he expect to benefit by writing and circulating them? And how would Constantius, Eusebia, and others have understood them? The ability to direct all manner of regional action and to persuade others of its efficacy could take an emperor far, since many Roman subjects looked to him as chief executive to address their concerns (or at least appear to) and provide practical solutions. Solutions to their subjects’ concerns were fundamental for emperors if they wished to maintain power, for a lack of elite or popular support could invite challenges to an emperor’s position. In this light, it is not surprising that image management or “publicity” figures prominently in Julian’s three speeches on his two imperial benefactors, as it was a function of all imperial panegyrics. The panegyrist-Caesar also crafted his orations to serve a diplomatic function, related to Constantius’s “good press” as a successful and collegial emperor and reflective of Julian’s interest in maintaining his own position by sustaining imperial concord. An emperor’s charisma, natural or borrowed, might be convincing to those in his immediate orbit, that is, his advisers, administrators, and soldiers,42 but that alone was not always enough. While imperial speeches of praise 40.  Hopkins 1978a. 41.  See Potter 1996; Corcoran 2000; Lenski 2002 and 2016; Schmidt-Hofner 2008; Edmondson 2015; and Cortés Copete 2017. 42.  On the charisma of the emperor, see Ando 2000: 27–48, who builds on Weber. Cf. Lendon 2006, who rejects Weberian legitimacy. Galba did not have even that—he was too old and weak and he lacked sufficient charisma to stay alive in January 69 (Tac. Hist. 1.6, 14–41). Later, in early 366, Valens needed to borrow the charisma of Arbitio in order to defeat the usurper Procopius (Amm. 26.9).

Introduction    9

preserve ossified measures of an emperor’s charisma (indirectly, when a panegyrist relates an emperor’s words and their impact or when he responds to them), they also speak to his interest in addressing common, contemporary concerns among his subjects, conveying what I suggest is an emperor’s responsiveness to his subjects, and, as I will argue, his interest in projecting and preparing for future action. That emperors were at times responsive to their subjects of course shows the partly reactive nature of the imperial office; Millar’s model is still useful in evaluating emperors. But, like their occasional displays of charisma, emperors’ responsiveness and their projection of/preparation for future action indicate that consensus was critical to their rule,43 and that panegyric played a prominent role in forging it. Communication was crucial to political support and consensus, and panegyrics disseminated messages about and between emperor and subject.44 Panegyrics do not tell us whether emperors achieved agreement with those they ruled, or to what degree, but they do tell us that both ruler and ruled considered speeches of praise a significant medium for building consensus in specific contexts.45 Besides Libanius’s references to copies of panegyrics in circulation, mentioned above, that Julian and Themistius between them wrote six panegyrics on Constantius (seven if we count Constantius as an additional audience of the panegyric on Eusebia) in diverse circumstances is suggestive of the importance and the usefulness of praise-giving. Thus speeches of praise can help us to better understand what consensus was reached, and why. P R A I SE - G I V I N G , P H I L O S O P H Y, P O L I T IC S , A N D G E N R E

Though far less than Julian, Themistius, too, has stimulated scholarly interest,46 as a rhetorician, philosopher, senator of Constantinople, and panegyrist of emperors. While in the second century, Dion of Prusa (or Dio Chrysostom) had joined praise-giving with philosophy in numerous Greek panegyrics on the emperor Trajan, eastern cities such as Alexandria and Tarsus, and other topics that were well known to Themistius,47 my focus here is primarily on the utility of Themistius’s “official” and “public” speeches during Julian’s tenure as Caesar, that is, his Orations 1–4.48 R. M. Errington has argued that Themistius was a kind of official court 43.  On emperors and consensus, see nn. 57 and 58 below. 44.  On the role of panegyric in building consensus between civilian and military elites, see MacCormack 1990: 162. See also Pernot 2015: 98–100: “Epideictic rhetoric is the social order’s rejuvenating bath” (98). On the creation of consensus, see Ando 2000: 175–205. 45.  See Maranesi 2016; more below. 46.  E.g., Dagron 1968; Vanderspoel 1995; Heather 1998; Errington 2000; Penella 2000; Heather and Moncur 2001; and Swain 2021. 47.  See C. P. Jones 1978; Moles 1990; and Swain 1996: 187–241. 48.  For Italian and Spanish translations of Orations 1–4, see Maisano 1995 and Ritoré Ponce 2000, respectively. For English translations of Orations 1 and 3, see Heather and Moncur 2001.

10      Introduction

propagandist, a “spin-doctor,” citing Themistius’s consular oration to Jovian (Or. 5) and considering that the emperor had communicated religious tolerance prior to the delivery of this oration (1 January 364), which thus would suggest that Themistius was just repeating the official line.49 But this is not a certainty. It may be that Themistius was not simply repeating official policy already enacted so much as arguing for its permanence, which is a very different thing.50 If so, this would show that Themistius was more independent and proactive as a panegyrist. In fact, in Oration 1 Themistius has been credited with boldly and deftly portraying Constantius’s Christianity as not incompatible with Hellenism,51 a depiction and effort described as “the sign of a great risk-taker.”52 This view, which I also subscribe to, precludes his having been a mere propagandist; and Themistius’s subsequent speeches, if less risky, also do not show him to have been just a “spin doctor.”53 Themistius had offered Constantius something new, a novel type of panegyric that was subsequently well known to and used by Synesius of Cyrene for his speech Peri basileias/De regno (On Kingship) regarding the emperor Arcadius at Constantinople ca. 398,54 for Synesius adopts the philosopher’s mantle in his praise of this emperor in much the same way that Themistius does for Constantius (De regno 1), although Synesius also displays his parrhesia (freedom of speech) by pointedly challenging imperial policy in the area of financial administration and the inclusion of “barbarians” in the Roman state.55 In addition to Julian’s and Themistius’s speeches, three panegyrists of Julian, the rhetoricians Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius of Prusa, and Libanius of Antioch, have left us four panegyrics between them that they delivered before and on behalf of the emperor in 362–363. These orations reveal many of Julian’s concerns as sole emperor, first during his stay at Constantinople and subsequently at Antioch, and show a close alignment with the imperial court. Ammianus Marcellinus, a contemporary of the three rhetoricians and a highly placed and well-educated staff officer in the Roman army (protector domesticus), is also a vital eyewitness of much of the fourth century. By 391, he had produced an indispensable Latin History (Res gestae) 49.  Errington 2000: 864–65, 876–77. Cf. Drijvers 2022: 102–8. 50.  Drijvers 2022: 107 reached a similar conclusion. Cf. Heather and Moncur 2001: 154–58 and 168 n. 98, who argue for Themistius providing Jovian with political flexibility in his relations with bishops who would have opposed his policy of toleration. 51.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 61–62, 73–74. 52.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 74. 53.  Cf. Errington 2000: 864–65, who sees the panegyrist as “the spin-doctor” (865); and Heather and Moncur 2001: 5–6, 12–42, esp. 38–42, for Themistius as “spin doctor and faction leader.” The question here is to what extent his position as a faction leader was an extension of his emperor’s power and to what extent it was an expression of his own. This question leads me to the intermediate view of seeing prominent panegyrists as “semi-independent”; see n. 66 below. 54.  On Synesius’s speech and its context, see Petkas 2018a. 55.  On the parrhesia of the philosopher, see Brown 1992: 61–70.

Introduction    11

of events during his own lifetime (353–378), a period that includes the entirety of Julian’s public career and nearly eight-year hold on imperial power (355–363).56 While Ammianus’s History—most of which is dedicated to Julian—is not a panegyric, it nonetheless reflects his keen use of the genre as well as the intersection of panegyric and historiography, and so demonstrates the value of speeches of praise in fourth-century historical discourse. Indeed, Ammianus was so well-educated and displays such a penchant for persuasion in his work that we can classify him as both a historian and a rhetorician. Furthermore, Ammianus’s work is critical for the light it sheds on the contexts of speeches of praise by and to Julian. Thus, as I have suggested above, the focus of this study will be first and foremost Julian, emperor and rhetorician, with Themistius, Ammianus, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius occupying subordinate positions. While the imperial office in this age was to a great extent autocratic (or simply militarized) in nature, nevertheless the power of the office was based on the occupant’s ability to maintain a healthy relationship not only with the Roman army, but with many others.57 Local and regional elites and the populace at large were also essential to an emperor’s stable rule.58 Studying Julian’s panegyrics as Caesar alongside the first four orations of Themistius, whose audiences were primarily (or perhaps initially) nonmilitary, thus can provide new insights into those nonmilitary and political relationships that emperors such as Constantius and Julian had to cultivate and to maintain in order to retain a strong hold on the imperial power.59 The necessity of cultivating and maintaining these relationships is also evident in the subsequent panegyrics of Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius to Julian as sole Augustus. Considering the interaction between these emperors and rhetoricians and their audiences through their speeches of praise will help to illuminate further the connection between communication and power during the fourth-century Roman Empire. R E A D I N G PA N E G Y R IC S : M E T HO D O L O G Y

It would seem that the two options available to practitioners of epideictic oratory, that is, to praise or to blame, were not really choices at all with respect to what could or should be said before Roman emperors. Nonetheless, a panegyrist could

56.  For Ammianus’s Julian, see Fontaine 1978 and Ross 2016b. 57.  On the imperial office, see Millar 1992; and Matthews 2007: 231–52. On the emperor and the Roman army, see Campbell 1984. 58.  E.g., MacMullen 1967; Yavetz 1969; Matthews 1998; Millar 1992; Brown 1992; Ando 2000; Salzman 2002; C. Kelly 2006; and Edmondson 2015. 59.  On the imperial power in the fourth century, see Valensi 1957 and Béranger 1972. See also Heather and Moncur 2001: 29–38, who discuss Themistius’s audience and his value to emperors.

12      Introduction

convey criticism safely by neat configurations of praise.60 My focus in this book is on Julian the emperor and rhetorician, but what follows is not a biography by any means. As has been noted, “Writing biography is a dangerous business.”61 Emperors and Rhetoricians is a comparative study that seeks to understand these actors and the world in which they lived better through the prism of panegyric, one that focuses on people, products, and processes at particular points in fourth-century social, political, military, and religious settings. In short, my aim is to explore how praise was configured and deployed in order to understand the historical “reality” of the fourth-century empire better. Imperial panegyrics often contained neatly constructed messages about emperors that emperors would have wished to be disseminated, not only about themselves as individuals but also about their governments and policies, of which they were the face.62 Critical to decoding these messages are the contexts in which they were broadcasted, the expectations that Roman subjects had of emperors, and how emperors and their top officials understood and went about responding to those expectations—all can be seen to be expressed and linked within the tapestry of skillfully woven imperial speeches of praise. The method of analysis adopted in this comparative study is both historical and literary, one that primarily examines the speeches and associated writings of Julian, Themistius, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius diachronically from about 350 to early 363 in terms of their development, and in turn in terms of what that development tells us about the utility of their praise-giving. This study approaches panegyrics as social and above all political communications and products, and my analysis follows earlier scholarship on Libanius and Julian, in which the rhetorician’s various orations on and to the emperor are evaluated in chronological order and in context for what they reveal about Libanius’s and Julian’s interests and interactions.63 My method is to organize their orations into particular units of time and to assess them in groups, since their dating shows that several of them were

60.  See Ahl 1984, who, drawing upon Demetrius of Phaleron and Quintilian, considered a “figured speech” in oratory, a type of speech that consisted of using emphasis and ambiguity as ways to communicate criticism safely; and Pernot 2015: 102–11. See also Bartsch 2012, for the coexistence and overlapping of praise and blame in Pliny. 61.  Adams 1979: 460: “Writing biography is a dangerous business. It compels us to generalize on the basis of single instances; it invites us to extrapolate on the assumption that a person’s actions and thoughts are consistent, when in truth a person is often ‘compelled in his public and official capacity to do things which in his private and personal capacity he heartily deplores.’ ” Further, ancient and modern approaches to writing biographies, such as those on Julius Caesar, have been highly problematic, as Morstein-Marx 2021 has shown. Modern biographies on Julian Caesar have displayed similar teleological flaws. 62.  E.g., Straub 1964: 146–74; A. Cameron 1970; MacCormack 1990; Rees 2002; and Maranesi 2016. 63.  See Wiemer 1995. Barnes 1981 and 1993, Rees 2002, and Elm 2012 have provided inspiration as well.

Introduction    13

produced not far apart,64 so as to make thematic and linguistic comparisons. There is another grouping as well: Ammianus’s historical narrative of Julian’s acclamation at Paris and his revolt in 360–361 is considered alongside one of the historian’s key contemporary literary sources for this period: Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians. By carefully analyzing these texts in sequence, by reading these speeches as they would have been listened to (or read), we can see what items and themes were discussed and prioritized, and so we can learn more about the contexts in which they were produced; in fact, we are mostly dependent on internal evidence from these speeches for their specific contexts. Each panegyric is quite distinct and reflective of the position of the panegyrist who fashioned it. For example, Themistius’s speeches of praise are largely philosophical in substance and orientation, whereas Julian’s concentrate more on the emperor as military commander and politician. And yet there is still overlap: the panegyrist-Caesar does not neglect philosophical themes, or rather virtues, such as Constantius’s philanthropia (humanity), which Themistius had said was particularly manifest in Constantius the emperor. Neither panegyrist followed the traditional outline of imperial panegyric precisely. In fact, as I will argue, their speeches exemplify literary and political versatility, critical modes of public communication among elite audiences empire-wide that could be applied in the interest of advancing various political objectives on the part of the panegyrists, and Julian, Themistius, and their fellow praise-givers saw great value in producing panegyric for these reasons. This makes panegyric more slippery in terms of how it was defined and practiced, and so it is even more important to ascertain and to demarcate when a praise-giver spoke for himself and when he spoke for the emperor, and to what audience. The central questions that Emperors and Rhetoricians thus seeks to answer are these: How did Julian, Themistius, Ammianus, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius conceive of praise discourse in relation to the exercise of Roman imperial power? And in what ways and to what ends did they apply this literary genre during their public careers (or postmilitary career, as in the case of Ammianus)? How the genre of imperial panegyric functioned, even as it was expressed in different forms, is of some importance for understanding the later Roman Empire. While panegyrics must be used carefully as historical evidence, since orators could take great license with the historical details that they chose to present (or omit) in keeping with their agendas, they nonetheless afford rare windows into how panegyrists and political actors manipulated both the conventions and fabric of praise-giving in specific contexts, and what such manipulations tell us about panegyrist, emperor, audience, and genre.65 To answer the central questions above, 64.  See appendices A and C. 65.  On the historical value of the Latin panegyrics, see Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 33–35. See also MacCormack 1990: 1–14; Omissi 2018: 47–67; Ross 2020b; and nn. 90 and 91 below.

14      Introduction

it is critical to explore panegyrics on their own terms in order to understand better the degree to which authors of this genre exercised independence from emperors and their court officials. As I will argue, late antique panegyrists were in effect apparitores (subordinates) of emperors because of their positions relative to them within the social and political hierarchy; but these same panegyrists were also semi-independent and powerful in their own right (on which, see below).66 In examining panegyrics, this comparative study on emperors and rhetoricians will make observations that shed new light on how their speeches portrayed emperor and policy purposefully, and how fundamental praise discourse was to elite communication in the fourth century. In particular, I offer new readings of the panegyrics of Julian, Themistius, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius and of Ammianus’s narrative in Res gestae, books 20–22, by focusing on notable remarks, allusions, and exempla (memorable precedents) within these works and what they reveal about author, audience (or readers), and circumstances, in addition to what they reveal about the overall messaging of these speeches and narratives; that is, what specific purpose(s) they were intended to serve beyond merely conveying praise of a ruler and his actions. The political objectives that I ascribe to these orations/narratives are in line with emerging scholarly perspectives on other panegyrics, such as the Latin speeches dedicated to Constantine.67 My methodology consists of reading imperial speeches of praise intratextually and intertextually—how one (section of) text sheds light on another and on the views and motives of the author(s)— and is akin to work on Pliny’s Panegyricus, which has been read as advancing his authorial agenda by allusion and doublespeak.68 Further, I follow scholarship on the appositional relationship between praise and persuasion in epideictic oratory by drawing attention to argumentation and audience response as central elements in fourth-century panegyrics,69 to how Julian, Themistius, and their fellow panegyrists designed their orations to convince their audiences of certain views regarding the subjects of their praise that would have had serious political implications. Since we lack external testimony on the success or impact of the above speeches of praise, my readings of them are theoretical; but my conclusions are consistent with how other panegyrics have been read. In the cases of Ammianus’s Res gestae and Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians and Misopogon, I employ panegyric as a heuristic.

66.  Of course, the degree of power that a panegyrist possessed and could wield depended on his background and position within his community and social circles; see n. 53 above. 67.  See Maranesi 2016. 68.  On intratextuality and intertextuality, see, respectively, Sharrock 2000; and G. Kelly 2008: 161–221, esp. 173–75. On Pliny, see Bartsch 2012; more below. 69.  See Webb 2003; and Pernot 2015: 87–91.

Introduction    15 C OM M U N IC AT IO N A N D P OW E R : PA N E G Y R IC A S P O L I T IC A L P R O SE

A product of the gradual development of Greek rhetoric since the fourth century BCE, panegyric occupied a prominent place in Roman political culture and discourse during the fourth century CE. By charting its development, the underlying objectives of emperors’ and rhetoricians’ speeches that I will argue for here become more evident. Greek oratory was divided primarily into three branches: forensic or judicial, deliberative, and epideictic or “display” oratory, the latter being the category in which praise-giving and its opposite, censure or blame (psogos), were placed.70 In all three branches, persuasion played a central role in the performance of a speech, since all three types of rhetoric were delivered before gatherings of citizens who were responsible for deciding issues of state and passing judgment on an individual’s reputation and worth. Gradually, epideictic oratory evolved to include ornate speeches or essays on kings and their performance as holders of high authority, such as Isocrates’s Evagoras, an early extant panegyric on the king of the city-state of Salamis in Cyprus.71 In fact, speeches of praise on kings (basilikoi logoi), and so on kingship, would become standardized as part of a unique literary genre with several subtypes, each suited to a specific occasion.72 That Roman imperial panegyric had several subtypes indicates that not only could it perform several functions but that the genre itself was open to various definitions and interpretations, which, I will argue, allows for additional subtypes apart from what scholars have proposed.73 What, then, was panegyric? This question has long exercised scholars, who have tended to center their analysis on the structural and lexical features of the genre.74 My focus, however, is more on the operational and thematic aspects of panegyric. As the following pages will demonstrate, panegyric was both a literary genre and a mode of political expression. More specifically, it was a literary mechanism for harnessing and maximizing political opportunities (or meeting political challenges), such as image management, diplomacy, consensus-building, and civic

70.  Arist. Rhet. 1.3, 1358b. Cf. [Cic.] Rhet. ad Herenn. 6.10–7.15 and Quint. Inst. Orat. 3.7, 3.8.7–9, for epideictic praise and censure. 71.  On epideictic oratory, see Pernot 2015 and Petkas 2018b. For a detailed discussion of the development of panegyric, see Pernot 1993: 19–114; for a brief introduction, see Rees 2007 and 2018; and Pernot 2015: 1–28. See also n. 77 below. 72.  See Russell and Wilson 1981, for their text and translation of the late third-century CE handbook of Menander Rhetor; and Race 2019, who pairs his new texts and translations of Menander’s two treatises with the Ars rhetorica, a work that has been attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus but may date to the late third century as well. 73.  See n. 102 below. 74.  E.g., Wiemer 1995: 372–76; Pernot 2015, esp. 31–42 and 2020.

16   

  Introduction

administration, and so a means by which laudator and laudandus, praise-giver and praisee, both expressed and negotiated power. After Caesar Augustus, speeches thanking the emperor (gratiarum actiones) for his bestowal of the consulship or highest magistracy in the state for one year, his introduction of a member of the imperial family to public life, and his adoption of a successor, among other conspicuous occasions, became common.75 Shortly after Nero’s accession in late 54, the philosopher Seneca produced a speech for the teenage emperor, De clementia (On Clemency), which specifically prescribed this virtue to the new administration of which Seneca himself was a part.76 And yet this was no mere philosophical speech or essay on imperial mercy; in the course of recommending clementia to Nero, of attempting to influence the emperor by associating and dressing him with her grace, Seneca praised Nero politically in keeping with the development of Latin panegyric.77 In fact, Seneca’s speech praises Nero’s capacity for clemency as much as it advises or nudges him to adopt this virtue in the exercise of his new imperial responsibilities. During the late imperial period, Latin discourse on praise-giving tended to be pointedly positive declarations on imperial character and policy.78 Unfortunately, only a handful of these panegyrics survive. In addition to twelve Latin orations in a single collection, the Twelve Latin Panegyrics (XII Panegyrici Latini)—which includes Claudius Mamertinus’s oration—we have three fragmentary orations of Symmachus and Ausonius’s Gratiarum actio, speeches that praise emperors from Maximian to Theodosius (289–389).79 As to the avowed purposes of these speeches, one was delivered on an emperor’s birthday, another on the occasion of an emperor’s wedding, one was presented to commemorate an emperor’s anniversary in holding imperial power, two were delivered to thank emperors for their granting of the consulship, and other speeches were offered on emperors’ triumphs in war, both foreign and civil. Dozens of such panegyrics were delivered before emperors every year, and for various reasons: to mark an emperor’s arrival in or departure from a city or even to reconcile him with members of the educated elite.80 The 75. See Talbert 1984: 227–30; and Pernot 1993: 108–9. 76. On Seneca and his time as prime minister of Nero, see Griffin 1992. On De clementia, see Braund 2011. 77. See Braund 2011: 19–21. For introductions to the history of Latin panegyric, see Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 1–37; Braund 1998; and Rees 2012: 3–48. 78. See Nixon and Rodgers 2015; Rees 2002 and 2012. 79. For the XII Panegyrici Latini, see Mynors 1964 and Nixon and Rodgers 2015; PLRE 1.140–41, Decimius Magnus Ausonius 7.1.865–70, Q. Aurelius Symmachus signo Eusebius 4. For Symmachus’s fragmentary panegyrics to Valentinian I and Gratian (Orr. 1–3), see Seeck 1883. On Symmachus’s panegyrics, see https://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/. For Ausonius’s Gratiarum actio to Gratian, see Green 1999. On Ausonius’s Gratiarum actio, see Gibson 2018. 80. See Lib. Or. 1, 96–97, who suggests that he felt compelled to produce a panegyric for Gallus Caesar at Antioch in 353/4 (which is unfortunately lost); cf. Or. 1, 91. Libanius does not note the exact

Introduction    17

sheer volume of orations delivered every year would have stimulated a degree of creativity in how praise (or censure) of the emperor was conceived. In 360, the bishop Hilary of Poitiers produced his In Constantium (Against Constantius), an “anti-panegyric” on Constantius that was circulated in a bid to undercut the emperor’s promotion of Homoian bishops and policies in the West.81 This work followed Hilary’s conversely respectful letter to the emperor in the Ad Constantium (To Constantius), demonstrating that Julian’s own volte-face the following year from panegyrics on Constantius to polemical letters against him (e.g., the Epistle to the Athenians) was not an anomaly, though it was more remarkable. More importantly, Hilary’s In Constantium shows how panegyric could be utilized to challenge consensus between subjects and their emperor (and the opposite). As has been observed, Hilary’s polemical work contains several panegyrical components that he adopted and inverted cleverly into censure for theological and political purposes.82 In addition to providing testimony on Hilary’s advanced rhetorical education, his speeches illustrate that epideictic oratory, both praise and censure, constituted a vital part of social, political, and religious discourse on an elite level, and was used by both pagans and Christians. The examples above also demonstrate that praise discourse possessed an inherent versatility in the fourth century, when panegyrics apparently played a more prominent role in elite communication than ever before. This skillful use of the genre and acknowledgment of its social and political value would persist into the late fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, when panegyric would continue to serve as a mode not only of elite cultural and political expression but of social mobility. For example, in Claudian we have an educated Easterner, a Greek turned Latin poet who adopted praise-giving as a craft and who used it to advance his career by means of increasingly well-placed patrons in Italy: first the Anician brothers and consuls Probinus and Olybrius (395), followed by the top Western general (magister militum) Stilicho and the Western emperor Honorius, as their panegyrist and propagandist at the latter’s court (ca. 395–404).83 reason for Gallus’s request, but it is revealing that he paints Gallus in dark colors and describes the Caesar’s relationship with Antioch’s elite as strained, to say the least. An emperor’s request for a panegyric was typically considered an honor, and imperial rewards often followed a panegyrist’s delivery of a speech of praise, such as those that are presumably connected with Libanius’s delivery of Oration 59 on Constantius and Constans ca. 348 (Or. 1, 80). Thus Gallus may have requested a panegyric from Libanius in order to express his desire for a positive relationship with the rhetorician and for them to be reconciled publicly. 81.  See Humphries 1998. For other invectives against Constantius and their role in public discourse, see R. Flower 2013 and 2016. 82.  Humphries 1998: 202, 211–21. 83.  See A. Cameron 1970 and Ware 2012. In praising his emperor and patron in verse, Claudian followed Optatianus, who had praised Constantine prior to 329 (see Wienand 2012b).

18      Introduction

It was for Honorius and Stilicho at Milan and Rome that Claudian produced poems of praise and censure, praise for the emperor and his chief general and censure for their Eastern opponents at Constantinople and elsewhere. In the fifthcentury West there was also Sidonius Apollinaris, the Gallic bishop of Clermont, who produced three Latin verse panegyrics on three different Western emperors— Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius—as part of an effort to maintain his Western influence, and so to affect policy there.84 In the early sixth-century East, the grammarian Priscian of Caesarea, too, produced Latin panegyric in verse, a speech of praise on the Eastern emperor Anastasius, and one that appears to have been aimed at shoring up the emperor’s political position among his top officials at Constantinople.85 And the Westerner Flavius Cresconius Corippus praised the new Eastern emperor Justin II in Latin verse shortly after Justin’s first consulship in 566,86 when Justin was in need of consensus for his rule following the death of Justinian. Hilary, Claudian, Sidonius, Priscian, and Corippus each utilized Latin imperial panegyric to improve their social and political position while playing their part in (de)constructing consensus, not unlike Julian, Themistius, Ammianus, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius. The Greek and Latin panegyrics that form the basis of the present study are conspicuous for the social and political positions of their authors and the authors’ dealings with Constantius’s and Julian’s governments. These orations also exemplify important modes and lines of communication during the fourth century, and so they have the potential to shed additional light on literary genre, political interests, and the dynamics of authority and influence on the part of emperors and rhetoricians. To adapt J. E. Lendon’s remarks, the relationship between emperor and panegyrist was an essential one, and it testifies to a code of reciprocity in an empire of honor where each actor possessed and performed power.87 Thus the delivery of an imperial speech was a significant public act that showcased the close social and political connection—and power imbalance—between an emperor as the most powerful patron within the empire and a panegyrist as a member of the

84.  Sid. Ap. Carm. 1–2 (Anthemius), 4–5 (Majorian), 6–7 (Avitus); Harries 2002: 11–12, 25, 78. On Sidonius’s panegyrics, see Stoehr-Monjou 2020. 85.  For the text, translation, and commentary of De laude Anastasii imperatoris, see Coyne 1991, who dates this speech to 513 and suggests Anastasius’s court as a key audience (15–16). Cf. Haarer 2006: 272–77, who makes a good case for early 502. In any case, the strengthening of Anastasius’s position is an apparent aim of Priscian’s panegyric, which should be read alongside Procopius of Gaza’s Greek panegyric on Anastasius. 86.  For the text, translation, and commentary of In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris, see A. M. Cameron 1976. 87.  Lendon 1997: 63–69. See also Lib. Or. 1, 111–12, for Libanius’s public speech to a prefect as a repayment of a debt.

Introduction    19

educated elite.88 Both emperor and rhetorician were united in a complex, codependent relationship, and both performed on a grand stage that many Roman subjects keenly observed. As well put by Lendon, “Honour played a vital role in creating what flexibility and responsiveness there was in Roman government, and that, in turn, generated consent in the governed.”89 If honor was the glue that helped to hold Roman society together, then panegyric was one of the applicators of and central nodes for that glue. Panegyric thus is revealing of Roman social and political relations on an elite level, but not exclusively so. Imperial speeches of praise were often delivered in key public places, such as the palace, the senate house, or the assembly of a major civic center, places that were filled with high government officials and with local and regional elites.90 Thus leading Roman subjects were the primary audiences of such speeches, but they would not have been the only audiences. While it seems that common citizens were unable to attend the delivery of panegyrics,91 they nonetheless did celebrate the occasions behind their delivery in the forum/agora, and some of the messages that panegyrists delivered within stately settings would have penetrated to the outside world in different ways. Greek and Latin panegyrics, such as those of Pliny the Younger, Dion of Prusa, Marcus Cornelius Fronto, Julian, Themistius, and Libanius, were often circulated among fellow notables in polished, written form, and the messages they contained would have spread orally as well.92 As we shall see below, such circulation not only enhanced the reputation of the rhetorician but also disseminated an emperor’s political program and preferences. What could Roman subjects expect from their emperor? And how did the emperor understand what was expected of him? These were fundamental questions that imperial panegyrics sought to address. Moreover, as I will argue, panegyrists such as Julian and Themistius were not mere mouthpieces for Constantius and his court (though Claudius Mamertinus and Libanius displayed less independence in their relationships with Julian); to a great degree they were responsible for selecting the contents of their orations, and so they too had power, to affect both how audiences understood the subjects of their works and how these same audiences thought of them as rhetoricians and politicians, explicitly and implicitly, for the delivery

88.  See Pernot 2015: 83–86. 89.  Lendon 1997: 236. 90.  E.g., Pan. Lat. 11(3).11, for the delivery of a panegyric in the imperial palace at Milan before Maximian in 291; 3(11).2.3–4, for delivery in the senate house of Constantinople before Julian and his court at the start of 362 (see chapter 4); and Lib. Or. 12, for possible delivery in the bouleuterion of Antioch at the start of 363 (see chapter 5). 91.  Pan. Lat. 11(3).11; Rees 2002: 10 and n. 37. 92.  E.g., Plin. Ep. 3.13, 3.18; Lib. Ep. 27.1 Norman (345 Foerster), Or. 1, 111–14, for Libanius’s panegyric to Strategius Musonianus, who made and disseminated copies of the speech; and n. 24 above.

20      Introduction

/publication of a speech of praise was a significant social and overtly political act. The production of such a speech was also part of a dialogic process. A theme that will recur throughout the present study is that panegyric was a fundamental mode of Roman imperial political communication.93 In fact, Roman imperial panegyric, I will argue, was sometimes a particular pronouncement of government. Numerous panegyrics were dedicated to an emperor each and every year, but relatively few were delivered before him and/or his top representatives in person. Fewer still were delivered by rhetoricians who were themselves high ministers of state, such as Claudius Mamertinus, or closely connected with the emperor though a private citizen (priuatus), like Libanius. Therefore on those rare occasions when an emperor granted an audience to panegyrists he also granted some officiality and legitimacy to their attendant speeches, that is, he provided a measure of imperial approval of their content by means of his presence or proximity, and especially so if emperor and rhetorician were already closely associated. Such approval would have been even more manifest in copies of these speeches that were chosen for circulation after delivery, and in the imperial rewards that panegyrists often received after their performance of praise.94 Panegyrics also allowed emperors to demonstrate their responsiveness to their subjects, with responsiveness being a message in itself in an age when personal access to the emperor in the interest of redressing grievances was highly restricted.95 These speeches preserve much about contemporary social and political concerns on the part of both emperor and subject. Themistius attests to this in telling Constantius and those in attendance at Ancyra (Ankara) that Roman subjects (Themistius and his fellow literati included) discussed the virtues of their government in the person of the emperor in marketplaces, theaters, and private residences, at the public baths, on land and sea, and during leisure time and work hours.96 Themistius’s speech spoke to those virtues. He knew that praise was a multivalent tool of the rhetorician; what he extolled was just as important as what he failed or omitted to extol, and both helped to shape an emperor’s reputation among his subjects, and so to influence, to a degree, public expectations and perceptions of government. Conversely, government in the person of the emperor could be not only the recipient of praise but also its distributor in the form of whom or what the emperor chose to honor, underscoring that he saw himself as somewhat responsive to the conduct and needs of those he ruled, or that he wished to appear to be. Themistius therefore saw praise-giving as performing a vital function of and for Roman government: “All government requires both praise and 93.  For other modes of Roman political communication, see Rosillo-López 2017; cf. Marcos 2018b. 94.  See n. 80 above. 95.  E.g., Matthews 2007: 244–49. 96.  Them. Or. 1, 3D–4A.

Introduction    21

punishment together as its tools, the one increasing virtue, the other curtailing wickedness.”97 But the primary powers and benefits of these orations were their ability to transmit important messages regarding the emperor and his policies, first to the educated elite and then others, and to shape the public reception of those policies.98 When an anonymous Latin panegyrist spoke before Constantine (probably) at Augusta Treverorum (Trier) in 307 (Pan. Lat. 7[6]), his showcasing of the emperor’s legitimacy would not have reflected the interests of the new imperial court alone. The public at large in the West would have been curious about the traits and abilities of a man whom they apparently had not known before his assumption of power in July 306. By enlisting the talents of an orator to praise and to promote him as emperor, Constantine can be seen responding to some of his new subjects’ concerns about his imperial credentials and his performance and objectives in the imperial office. Here we might also reflect on a subsequent Latin panegyric before Constantine in early 313, again at Augusta Treverorum (Pan. Lat. 12[9]), after the emperor concluded his civil war against Maxentius, a speech delivered before an audience that would have been interested in Constantine’s doings after his victory and what they meant for the city and region moving forward. This panegyric’s pointed references to the emperor’s recent visit to Rome and to his restoration of some senatorial authority there are also suggestive of a wider intended audience in Italy.99 Roman subjects had expectations regarding how their emperors should perform as commanders in the field and as civil administrators at home, in peacetime and in war (domi militiaeque), and panegyrics went some way to informing them on these critical points and public aspects of imperial rule contemporaneously. Thus we should consider that panegyrists’ references to emperors’ responses to civic concerns and barbarian activity along the frontiers and to their approaches to appointing governors and administrative subordinates are meant to exhibit imperial responsiveness to Roman subjects, who would have been concerned with such matters because of their impact on daily life. We will find similar expectations in and motives behind the panegyrics to Constantius and Julian as emperors. 97.  Them. Or. 1, 13A, trans. Heather and Moncur 2001. Pliny also testifies (of course, not disinterestedly) to the essential role that speeches on the emperor such as his played in public, political discourse; see Plin. Pan. 54.5. 98.  See MacCormack 1975: 159–66. Cf. Nixon 1983: 90–93, who questions this and notes that Licinius’s portrayal as a tyrant in particular Latin panegyrics would have been “old news” to contemporaries, but does not consider political messages more broadly, such as imperial legitimacy and deportment. As will be evident here, I see panegyrics as intended to announce, explain, and/or advance imperial ideology and policy. See also Swain 2021: 22–26, for “the political message” in Themistius’s speeches on Valens. 99.  Pan. Lat. 12(9).1.1, 20.1. On Constantine’s panegyrics and their audiences, see Maranesi 2016; cf. Ware 2019: 294–96.

22      Introduction

On 17 January 363, Julian issued an interesting edict from Antioch to his urban prefect of Rome, L. Turcius Apronianus,100 whom he had appointed the year before. This law dealt with, in part, how many individuals could comprise the juridical staff of the prefect, and it contains some notable comments that are relevant to Julian the rhetorician and panegyrist: For who has ever decided to employ obsequious laudations in the hope of holding more dearly a wilting palm rather than of consecrating one flourishing and lively? . . . Moreover, no end of eloquence is more distinguished than to have yielded [one’s position] in honor.101

To the emperor, rhetoric and oratory played a significant role in public, political discourse. The emperor’s words also imply that eloquence and paideia (shared education and culture) were meant to be performed in the interest of promoting a rhetorician and his subject. Given that Julian was both an emperor and a rhetorician, one who used the power of praise to advance his public career, his statements above have something of a reflective, autobiographical quality. They also provide further testimony regarding the role and value of rhetoric in Julian’s communicative strategies as sole Augustus. P R A I SE O P E R AT IO NA L I Z E D

To be sure, panegyrics could portray emperor and rhetorician not as they were, but as they wished to be seen, and so their value as historical documents has suffered from charges of insincerity. However, whether Julian, Themistius, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius were sincere or otherwise in their praise of emperors is beside the point; what matters is that these rhetoricians played an active role in the workings of Roman government by producing panegyrics, and that they presented Constantius and Julian in these speeches in ways that conceivably were acceptable and even desirable to these emperors and the empire’s subjects. Because panegyric was a vital medium for political communications from and to the government, and so performed a vital political function within it, the ways in which rhetoricians depict imperial power in their speeches are revealing 100.  Datum XVI. kal. Febr; see below. PLRE 1.88–89, L. Turcius Apronianus signo Asterius 10. 101.  Etenim qui semel praeconis obsequiis usi iudicauerunt, quid expectant dulcius marcentem tenere palmam quam florentem et uiridem consecrare? . . . Ac nullus ornatior eloquentiae finis est quam in honore dedisse. The text is that of Bischoff and Nörr 1963, lines 5–6, 9. I would like to thank Thomas Banchich not only for first alerting me to Julian’s constitution here some years ago, but also for sharing his working translation of and notes on it. The translation above is a modified version of his. As is attested in the subscription, the emperor Gratian had his own urban prefect, Publius Ampelius, read aloud ([edictum] Lectum apud Ampelium) and/or (re)publish Julian’s constitution at Rome in 371; PLRE 1.56– 57, Publius Ampelius 3.

Introduction    23

of that government. And knowing how emperors and panegyrists wished to be seen is itself valuable, since it can provide insights into contemporary Roman political culture, events, and actors and their mentalités. Scholars have noted generally how the genre of panegyric was quite versatile, as it could be deployed in poetry or prose, and for different purposes, such as to commemorate imperial birthdays, anniversaries, and other such significant occasions publicly. Consistent with this view, the present study aims to demonstrate just how useful a genre praise-giving could be, particularly in the case of Julian, who considered the power of praise well suited to advancing his social and political interests and who tailored this genre to various needs, such as when he desired to maintain Constantius’s goodwill and political support, and later to engage in self-promotion during civil war against the same man. In the fourth-century Roman Empire, panegyric, both Latin and Greek, was a fundamental means of communicating political ideology and legitimacy to Roman subjects. And fourth-century panegyrists, while they often relied on models, such as Pliny’s polished Panegyricus and Dion of Prusa’s orations on kingship, produced speeches that were unique to their own era and government. Chapters 1–5 present case studies that show how panegyric was multivalent and how it offered wide purchase, in addition to its formal subdivisions listed in the handbook of Menander Rhetor, how it could be and was utilized to (de)construct, to promote, to finesse, to legitimize, to unite and reinforce, to punish, and to advise. These diverse functions of speeches of praise underscore the overarching value of panegyric as a critical tool in imperial communications and public relations; that is, the role it played in how and what the empire’s subjects thought of their emperors and government. In highlighting and discussing additional types of imperial panegyric,102 this study offers a new way to read speeches of praise by considering content and context more closely. Chapter 1 discusses and explains how Themistius and Julian each used their first panegyrics on Constantius to (de)construct his image and power as emperor from ca. 350 to 356, with emphasis on his paideia, on his public standing as a man of letters, in order to strengthen his ties with the educated elite. Constantius advanced the rhetorician and philosopher Themistius to the Senate of Constantinople and the learned Julian to the rank of Caesar in late 355, and so their panegyrics can be classified as two kinds of speeches of thanks. Moreover, Themistius’s and Julian’s new positions gave their speeches of praise wider purchase and greater significance than those of panegyrists in less exalted stations. Their shaping of Constantius’s public profile in these speeches was accomplished by drawing 102.  On the typology of epideictic speeches, see Pernot 2015: 50–55. See also Pernot 1993: 265–99, for brief, double, and composite encomia and expressions of emotions, such as admiration, gratitude, affection, joy, and sadness, as types; and Wiemer 1995: 372–76, for the showpiece, the courtly presentation, the official declaration, the diplomatic speech, and the political pamphlet as types.

24      Introduction

attention to his education and eloquence, his commutation of capital punishment (apparently in a specific case), and his generous treatment of his brothers and his friends as examples of his philanthropia, among other virtues. In addition to revealing remarks of Ammianus (21.16.4), Constantius’s circulation of his oration before the “usurper” Vetranio and his Demegoria, the public speech that adlected Themistius to the senatorial order, illustrate well that the emperor was interested in cultivating his image as a man of letters. That he seemingly desired such image management through Greek panegyrics also suggests that he was particularly interested in how he was perceived by the educated elite in the East, since Themistius’s speeches were delivered there, while Julian’s first speech was produced in the West but eventually circulated in the East; and both were Easterners. Furthermore, Themistius and Julian variously conveyed their learnedness and semi-independence as panegyrists in their often opposing presentations of the emperor, which thus are revealing of their divergent authorial agendas regarding Constantius. Whereas Themistius extolled Constantius for his humanity, learning, and generosity in a bid to enhance the emperor’s public reputation and to increase the value of rhetoricians and philosophers such as himself to Constantius, Julian, on the other hand, utilized praise skillfully as a multivalent tool to enhance his cousin’s public profile and yet to undercut him with the Eastern literati, all the while advancing his own reputation as a learned Caesar. Chapter 2 reads Julian’s and Themistius’s panegyrics on/to Constantius from 357–359 as diplomatic texts, which the rhetoricians fashioned to finesse different relationships with the emperor and to promote themselves. During this two-year period, Julian resided in Gaul and produced two distinct orations, a kind of speech of thanks to the empress Eusebia and another, more original oration on Constantius, both of which variously convey Julian’s concern with maintaining positive relations with the imperial couple generally. Indeed, Julian emphasizes Constantius’s and Eusebia’s generosity as his benefactors and their penchant for clemency and reconciliation, traits that suggest the panegyrist-Caesar’s interest in maintaining political support from his Augustan superior. But Julian also manages to present himself more keenly than before within these same speeches, especially in his second oration on Constantius, which includes a “political manifesto” that suggests that the Caesar was already envisioning himself as an Augustus. As for Themistius, he actually traveled to Rome as a senator of and an envoy from Constantinople in early 357 to deliver an official ambassadorial speech (presbeutikos logos) before Constantius on the occasion of the emperor’s celebrations in the Eternal City, a speech aimed partly at securing greater favor for both his adopted city and himself. But Themistius’s oration focuses far more on the cooperative relationship between Constantinople and Rome during the civil war between Constantius and Magnentius, credits Constantius for this relationship, and portrays the emperor as benevolent and pragmatic. This was a message that Constantius seemingly desired

Introduction    25

to be communicated to his Western subjects, particularly to the Senate of Rome, with whom he would have sought to continue building consensus for his rule after having ultimately defeated the Westerner Magnentius in late 353. Chapter 3 explores the relationship between panegyric, historiography, and epistolary writing by studying two related narratives of two critical events in 360– 361, when Julian’s army acclaimed him Augustus at Paris and then joined him in his march on and seizure of much of Illyricum from Constantius. Panegyric is utilized here as a heuristic. Ammianus’s historical narrative is the most detailed source on this period of imperial transition, and close scrutiny of his text shows that he used panegyric in his account of public personalities, events, and processes and in a series of adlocutiones, or speeches, attributed to Julian for purposes of legitimization, to help him defend and to advertise Julian’s imperial credentials in the Res gestae. This historiographical approach, one in which panegyrical material (laudatiua materia) figured prominently, is not unique to Ammianus and can be traced back ultimately to Julian, who wrote his ideological/propagandistic Epistle to the Athenians partly in an auto-panegyrical mode, a literary work with which Ammianus was well acquainted. The Epistle is a rare and innovative imperial pronouncement, one that Julian crafted with components of apologetic, polemical, biographical, and praise discourse to promote and to legitimize himself—and not for the last time—as a worthy emperor and holder of Augustan rank, while also deconstructing Constantius’s own claims to this same rank. Though not imperial panegyrics in the strict sense, Ammianus’s and Julian’s narratives of Julian’s conduct at Paris in early 360 help to underscore the prevalence, influence, and versatility of praise discourse that I argue for, and provide insights into the role of speeches of praise and blame in relating historical “reality” as well. Chapter 4 examines Claudius Mamertinus’s Latin panegyric to Julian at Constantinople at the start of 362. Mamertinus’s gratiarum actio to the emperor for the consulship he received from him also doubles as a well-crafted outline of Julian’s political program. In addition to being Julian’s consul and panegyrist, Mamertinus served as his praetorian prefect of Illyricum, Italy, and Africa, and these high offices imbue the rhetorician’s speech with an “official” quality and help to cast him as the emperor’s “spokesman.” When Mamertinus’s panegyric is read closely, it is evident that his chief concern was to reconcile the West and the East, and to build a consensus for Julian’s nascent government and his position as sole emperor in Constantinople by throwing into relief Julian’s positive military and, above all, civic conduct, thus stressing his qualifications for the imperial office. Mamertinus conveys this partly through exempla that signaled that Julian “restored” civility, liberty, and good government. Mamertinus also avoids religion but promotes divinity generally, indicating neutral religious messaging and a neutral religious policy at this stage. In so doing, his oration, I will argue, reflects and even projects Julian’s concern with creating consensus with his new Eastern subjects in 362 in

26      Introduction

much the same way that Constantius had communicated his desire for consensus with his Western subjects through Themistius’s panegyric in 357. In early 362, the Greek rhetorician Himerius also delivered a speech of praise on Julian at Constantinople (Or. 41). In his panegyric, Himerius presents Julian as the new founder of the city, a presentation that includes references to the emperor’s policy on temple renovation. Compared to Mamertinus’s studied silence on Julian’s religious policy, these references are notable. And yet Himerius’s remarks are brief and general, and he places them among Julian’s other, “secular” building projects. Thus the Greek panegyrist does not draw inordinate attention to the emperor’s policy on the restoration of traditional cult. Both Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s speeches, though delivered by a high government official in Latin and a priuatus in Greek, respectively, can be classified as components of Julian’s communicative strategies: they are panegyrics designed to unite and reinforce. Chapter 5 again employs panegyric as a heuristic in some of Julian’s epistles to Eastern cities for what it can reveal about the emperor’s authorial agenda, which, I will argue, was to increase his authority and standing with urban centers that he had hitherto not controlled. Two Greek panegyrics to Julian from Libanius, who delivered these orations before the emperor on two different occasions in Antioch, that is, upon Julian’s arrival in the city in late July 362 (Or. 13) and on his assumption of the consulship at the start of 363 (Or. 12), are then explored. As I will argue, Libanius’s detailed remarks on Julian’s restoration of the cultus deorum, in contrast to Mamertinus’s silence and Himerius’s general references, reflect a careful and gradual curation and promotion of new imperial policy. Finally, the last oration that Julian produced before his death in Persia in late June 363, the Antiochikos/ Misopogon, which he designed simultaneously to promote, to punish, and to advise, is closely scrutinized. After his relations with the people of Antioch deteriorated, Julian produced another kind of unique pronouncement that at once publicized him as a responsible and responsive civic manager and censured the city for its civic parrhesia and many missteps during his residency there. As in the Epistle to the Athenians, there is panegyrical material in the Antiochikos/Misopogon, which, I will argue, can be read as another self-panegyric, for Julian refers to his family history and upright behavior in clear instances of self-promotion. Moreover, this pronouncement, which bore two distinct titles, was Julian’s method by which to brand Antioch with (reversible) dishonor that was meant to shape its behavior during his absence, while also publicizing his actions in and toward the city for posterity. Julian had failed to create consensus, while the populace of Antioch had failed to cooperate with him to this end. The conclusion summarizes my main contributions in Emperors and Rhetoricians. Panegyric in the fourth-century Roman Empire was a flexible genre and tool. It could be and was designed in diverse forms and contexts to (de)construct, to promote, to finesse, to legitimize, to unite and reinforce, to punish, and to advise,

Introduction    27

and in many cases it was able to do some or all of these things all at once. To answer the question above—What, then, was panegyric?—I posit that panegyric was both political communication and opportunity. Political opportunities could be harnessed and maximized by means of formal or informal panegyric, such as open letters and satirical orations in a (self-)panegyrical mode, all of which could be circulated for wider political impact. The discourse of praise was often used to showcase an emperor’s new political posture and preferences and to communicate his concern with building consensus after civil war. Consequently, the Julian that emerges from this investigation of panegyric, communication, and power is an attentive, ambitious, and pragmatic man, both as a rhetorician and as an emperor, which necessitates that we revise views of him as a Caesar and an Augustus. Studying panegyric affords us a better understanding of Julian, and studying Julian a better understanding of panegyric.

1

Panegyric, Paideia, and the (De)construction of the Emperor’s Image and Power Themistius, Julian, and Constantius, ca. 350–356 CE For different things enhance different people and make them notable—for some it is the glory of their wealth, for others the abundance of their possessions, for a few duties to the state, and for others forcefulness in words. demeg. const. 19c, trans. heather and moncur

Overt criticism is troublesome to those in power. stob. flor. 4.5.52, trans. swain 1

An emperor’s public image was inextricably linked with how he negotiated his power, and it could even shape how he was remembered after his reign. After he orchestrated the murders of most of his relatives in summer 337, Constantius focused his energies and resources on defending Rome’s eastern frontier against its longtime nemesis, Persia. He was twenty years old when he became an Augustus in 337, and in the thirteen years that followed he would promote himself as a military emperor in keeping with the image (but not the record) of Alexander of Macedon, whom he wished to emulate, like most emperors before him. Also like most emperors before him, Constantius failed in this implied aim, and the legacy of a brave and traditionally successful general against the Persians that he wanted to forge was never realized.2 But in 350, an opportunity for him to recast his desired 1.  The second extract is from an epistle of the philosopher Sopater to Himerius as preserved by Stobaeus. On Sopater’s epistle to Himerius, see Swain 2013: 13–21; and Marcos 2018a: 275, 282–84. 2.  In or ca. 340, one of Constantius’s officials presented him with the Itinerarium Alexandri (see Lane Fox 1997), a work that the emperor had requested and that draws favorable comparisons between him and Alexander. For Constantius’s Eastern movements and residencies between 337 and 350, see

29

30      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

image as a victorious general, to rebrand himself as a legitimate, fortunate, and cultured emperor, ultimately presented itself. When the general Magnentius seized imperial power in Gaul and the West with the murder of Constans on 18 January 350, he presented a serious challenge to the dwindling dominance of the ruling dynasty, and how Magnentius should be dealt with concerned Constantius mightily, to the point that he would raise his cousin Gallus to Caesar at Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) on 15 March 351. Constantius then sent his Caesar to the East to guard it while he confronted Magnentius, whom he ultimately defeated at Mons Seleucus in Gaul in late 353.3 In his first imperial oration, Themistius frequently refers to a seemingly generic but barbarous tyrant who may be Magnentius.4 Far less troublesome but no less uncivilized was Vetranio, the former top general (magister peditum) of Constans in Illyricum, who had assumed imperial power at Sirmium on 1 March 350.5 As a panegyrist-senator, Themistius would lambaste these usurpers again in his second oration in late 355, albeit generally,6 about two years after Magnentius’s final defeat and fall and about five years after Vetranio’s peaceful deposition. Around the same time, as Constantius’s colleague in empire, Julian would single out and assail these two “tyrants” as bestial and dangerous pretenders.7 Whereas he defeated Magnentius by force of arms, Constantius, we are told, had “deposed” Vetranio from power by force of speech (or learning),8 and the rhetorician-Caesar highlights this latter episode as a remarkable instance of Constantius’s eloquence and education. A revealing commonality in Themistius’s first two orations, probably in late 350 (Or. 1) and certainly in late 355 (Or. 2), and Julian’s first panegyric in 355/6 (Or. 1) is Constantius’s presentation in relation to the generals and usurpers Magnentius and Vetranio.9 Interestingly, Julian refers to Constantius’s speech before Vetranio and his army as something in circulation in written form, in Latin, and remembered by those who heard it at Naissus (Niš) on 25 December 350, and therefore known to the Caesar’s Barnes 1993: 219–20. On Constantius’s record against Persia, see Blockley 1989 and 1992: 12–24; Seager 1997: 253–62; and Marcos 2012. For Constantius’s record against Persia as a focal point in the historiography on his reign, see Baker-Brian 2022: 75–79. Libanius criticized Constantius’s Persian policy as defensive-minded (Or. 18, 205–7). 3.  See Bleckmann 1994: 42–59; Kienast 1996: 318–20; Drinkwater 2000; Baker-Brian 2022: 207–83; and n. 221 below. 4.  Them. Or. 1, 3B, 6A, 8C, 11B, 13A, and 17D. On the dating of this speech, see appendix A. 5.  See Bleckmann 1994: 42–59; Kienast 1996: 321–22; Drinkwater 2000; and Baker-Brian 2022: 239–42. 6.  See Them. Or. 2, 33D–34B, 36A–38A; and Omissi 2018: 171–83. 7.  Jul. Or. 1, 30C–D, 31B, 33C–34B, 38C, and 47C–D. See also Omissi 2018: 171–83. 8.  Jul. Or. 1, 1D: λόγῳ καὶ πειθοῖ; 47D: ταῖς δημηγορίαις. See also Jul. Or. 1, 31C–32A, Or. 3, 76B–78A; Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.1: facundiae ui deiectum imperio. Cf. GLL, s. v. facundia, which can mean “learning, erudition.” On this deposition having been a carefully stage-managed affair, see Omissi 2018: 183–90. 9.  On the dating of Themistius’s and Julian’s debut orations, see appendices A and C, respectively.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    31

audience.10 Such a speech can only have been “published” by Constantius himself, who thus took an active interest both in shaping the narrative regarding Vetranio and in enhancing the image of his learnedness overall; and Themistius and Julian followed suit. Overlooked in assessments of Themistius’s and Julian’s portrayals of Magnentius and Vetranio is how these rhetoricians implicitly focus on Constantius’s paideia (shared education and culture) and tether it to his legitimacy, while passing over, and so denying, the “tyrants” both legitimacy and learning.11 Panegyrics were critical modes of political and dialogic communication, and an emperor’s erudition was one component of his legitimacy that needed to be publicized and negotiated. Indeed, this helps to explain why Libanius would offer fulsome praise of Julian’s education in two panegyrics before him,12 even though Julian himself had already amply advertised his learning through numerous orations and letters. And the themes and contents of Themistius’s speeches to subsequent Eastern emperors also demonstrate a consistent interest in improving the public images of his patrons’ paideia; it was undoubtedly for these contributions that Valens and Theodosius valued him.13 10.  Jul. Or. 3, 77D–78A. Julian refers to Constantius’s speech as a ξύγγραμμα. The exposure or circulation of Constantius’s address, if known, would have a direct bearing on the audience of Julian’s own oration. Cf. Athan. Hist. Arian. 50.1, for the rhetorical question that Constantius deployed to depose Vetranio: τίνι μετὰ ϑάνατον ἀδελφῶν ἡ κληρονομία γίγνεται (“To whom does an inheritance fall after the death of a brother?”); Zos. 2.44.3; Chron. Pasch. s. a. 350 (p. 539). For Vetranio’s deposition at Naissus, see Them. Or. 3, 45C and Jer. Chron. s. a. 351. For the date, see Barnes 1993: 220–21. For more on an emperor’s addresses, see chapter 3. 11.  Themistius would continue to promote the image of Constantius as an emperor of paideia, as a litterateur (φιλόλογος) and patron of the arts, in Oration 4 in early 357 and again in April/May 357 in Oration 3, in which Constantius is praised as a philosopher, as in Oration 2, and in contrast to Magnentius. See also Aurelius Victor, who, in his largely panegyrical account of Constantius from 360/1, describes Vetranio at 41.26 thus: litterarum prorsus expers et ingenio stolidior idcircoque agresti uecordia pessimus. Cf. 42.23 (Nickbakht and Scardino): [Constantius] litterarum ad elegantiam prudens atque ornandi genere leni iocundoque. Eutropius, writing ca. 369, says much the same about Vetranio ( uirum probum et morum ueterum ac iucundae ciuilitatis, sed omnium liberalium artium expertem adeo ut ne elementa quidem prima litterarum nisi grandaeuus et iam imperator acceperit, 10.10.2), although he says nothing about Constantius’s learning. On Victor’s focus on education and culture in his work, see Bird 1984: 71–80, esp. 76–77, for the case of Vetranio. See also n. 45 below. 12.  See Lib. Or. 13, 1, 8–13, 25, 51–52 and Or. 12, 27–33, 92–94, where Julian’s learning is praised in some detail in speeches delivered before him at Antioch in late July 362 and 1 January 363, respectively. For more on these speeches, see chapter 5. 13.  Note Themistius’s rare reference to Heraclitus of Ephesus in his consular oration before Jovian in 364 (Or. 5, 69B), in addition to typical references to Homer, among others. These allusions imply that Jovian valued and so understood them, and thus they indirectly testify to some measure of learning on his part, though his education is not directly praised. Themistius adopted much the same approach in his subsequent orations, such as Orr. 6 and 15. A panegyrist was only as good as the subject he needed to praise. For Themistius and Valens, see n. 46 below. For Themistius and Theodosius, see Them. Orr. 14–16; cf. Vanderspoel 1995: 187–216; Heather and Moncur 2001: 218–83. On paideia and power, see Brown 1992: 35–70.

32      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

As Peter Brown has illustrated, paideia was not merely education or learning; it was a common cultural currency and language among the empire’s educated elite, who deployed paideia in mutually beneficial exchanges.14 These exchanges often took the form of speeches by rhetoricians as representatives of groups or communities that utilized paideia in their public discourse with provincial governors or other high imperial officials in order to persuade them to dispense benefits in the name of the emperor. And governors and officials, for their part, often recognized and accepted this cultural currency by allowing themselves to appear to be persuaded by learned speeches that also enhanced their public standing among elite subjects.15 Thus, both orator and governor were recognized, respected, and rewarded by means of paideia. And paideia took on greater meaning and value in exchanges between panegyrists and emperors. Themistius delivered his Orations 1 and 3 before Constantius. As for Julian, no matter that he did not do the same with his Orations 1 through 3; they were apparently circulated and their contents known, though whether in the exact form that we have them is debatable.16 In any case, each rhetorician produced praise for the same subject and in so doing harnessed and maximized political opportunities by deftly using panegyric as a versatile vehicle. Scholars have not adequately explained why Constantius employed Julian and Themistius in the capacity of panegyrists and what the underlying purposes of their panegyrics to him were. In assessing their orations, I am following scholarship that has advanced the view that argumentation and audience response were key elements of epideictic discourse, not unlike forensic and judicial oratory.17 Julian’s and Themistius’s speeches of praise, I will argue, elucidate Constantius’s relationships with the educated elite and testify to his desire to showcase his paideia. In particular, their panegyrics convey a concern with improving perceptions of Constantius’s paideia, which was a significant component of his public image and power as emperor because it fostered relations with the empire’s literati, upon which consensus and governance depended. In certain respects, these speeches even act as kinds of policy pronouncements,18 since they were delivered on (Themistius) or produced for (Julian) important public occasions, as we shall see below. 14.  Brown 1992; cf. Hopkins 1993. See also Petit 1957; C. P. Jones 1978; Barnes 1987; Kaster 1988; Van Hoof 2013; Córtes Copete 2015; and n. 93 below. 15.  Brown 1992: 44–45. 16.  See below and chapter 2. 17.  See Webb 2003; and Pernot 2015: 87–91. 18.  I will also take this approach in chapters 4 and 5 with respect to the panegyrics that Julian received. See Vanderspoel 1995: 88, who notes that Themistius’s adlection was important to Constantius because it “advertised support from some pagans and a willingness to accept diversity of opinion.” But we can go further.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    33

This chapter places Julian’s first oration, the First Panegyric on Constantius (Or. 1),19 and Themistius’s first two orations in dialogue with one another and with the Demegoria Constantii, an imperial letter of Constantius to the Senate of Constantinople in late 355 that was originally written in Latin (Oratio Constantii) and then translated into Greek and inserted in Themistius’s oeuvre. My aim here is to explore Julian’s and Themistius’s presentations of Constantius as emperor and what these presentations tell us about Constantius’s interests and motives in enlisting these two men as his panegyrists. The Demegoria will shed much-needed light here because it is securely dated (1 September 355) and purports to be an official pronouncement of Constantius’s, and so is a document whose presentation of the emperor can provide insights into orations written on him before and after this letter. These orations are examined in two sections. The first section explores Constantius’s self-presentation in relation to Themistius in the former’s Demegoria, followed by Themistius’s two panegyrics to Constantius (Orr. 1 and 2) in terms of their depictions of him as an emperor of paideia, speeches that describe Constantius as a philosopher with the attendant virtues. There are even hints in Themistius’s first oration to Constantius’s potential problems with his public image, which are suggestive of Themistius’s semi-independence as a panegyrist and his motives in producing philosophical panegyrics for the emperor. Finally, what Constantius would have expected to gain from these orations is considered. The second section assesses Julian’s first panegyric on Constantius (Or. 1) in terms of its messaging and context and their bearing on the underlying objective(s) of his speech as a Caesar to his Augustan superior. In particular, it is evident that Julian highlights Constantius’s paideia as a key feature of his possession of imperial power and uses it to develop the image of Constantius as a judicious wielder of that power. Subsequently, I demonstrate how Julian veils criticism of Constantius while signaling praise, criticism that is suggestive of Julian’s semi-independence as a panegyrist and that, I would argue, was meant to undercut Constantius’s reputation in the East among the educated elite as much as Themistius’s panegyrics were meant to advance it. In both cases, Themistius and Julian produced praise that appears intended to (de)construct or shape their benefactor’s image as a learned ruler, and to promote him as such to their audience.

19.  I should note here at the outset that my uses of “Panegyric on Constantius” and “Panegyric to Constantius” as titles for Julian’s and Themistius’ speeches are my subtle ways of distinguishing between speeches that we know for certain were delivered to or for Constantius in a public setting and those that we are not sure were delivered to that emperor but where he is the subject.

34      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction A L I T E R A RY A N D P O L I T IC A L A PPA R I T OR : T H E M I S T I U S A S PA N E G Y R I S T A N D SE NAT O R

Apparitores (public servants) had a long history of assisting emperors in running the empire, and Constantius relied on various notable deputies to advance his political and literary agendas.20 About one year after Gallus Caesar’s deposition and execution in late 354, Constantius elevated Julian, Gallus’s younger half brother and the last male member of the House of Constantine, to the rank of Caesar in the West. These two promotions, of Gallus and Julian, represent Constantius’s primary interest in acquiring loyal military and political assistants for the defense of Roman frontiers in the East and the West, respectively, for military and political concerns appear to have been foremost among Constantius’s reasons for elevating his two cousins.21 An emperor’s dies imperii (the date of his investiture) and his subsequent placement are of interest in determining the motive behind his elevation. While Constantius had chosen an inauspicious date for Gallus’s elevation to Caesar, 15 March 351—the anniversary of Julius Caesar’s assassination—and so perhaps implied that Gallus was destined to have a rather limited tenure in the imperial office, Julian’s dies imperii, 6 November 355, may have been his birthday,22 or the date of some other significant and symbolic event that escapes us. Roman emperors did not choose such important dates haphazardly. Indeed, Constantine had carefully chosen each of the investiture dates for all six of his Caesars,23 one of 20.  Aurelius Victor refers to Constantius’s officials contemporaneously as apparitores (42.25). And Themistius in time came to view himself as an apparitor to his emperor; see Them. Or. 34.28, where he compares the Eastern Augustus Theodosius to Heracles and himself to Iolaus, his boon companion and assistant. On Constantius II and the imperial administration, see Vogler 1979. On apparitores, see C. Kelly 2006: 134–36, with references. 21.  See Blockley 1972a: 433, 444–47. Underlying Julian’s promotion is the fact that Alamanni had overrun the Rhine frontier and seized some imperial territory, and in so doing seized some imperial revenues (see Heather 2020, who corrects Drinkwater 2007). 22.  CIL 12, p. 277 (in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius). The year of Julian’s birth has been contentious; for the earliest possible date of late 330/early 331, see Marcos 2014: 753 n. 23. That Eutropius records Julian as being “in the seventh year of his imperium” (imperii anno septimo, 10.16.2) when he died on 26 June 363 would support seeing Julian as thirty-two, not thirty-one, at the time of his death, if Eutropius means to say that Julian held imperial power for a full seven years and part of an eighth. In 363, Julian was actually in his eighth year of imperial power since the start of 356, or his ninth year since 6 November 355, if inclusive dating is used. But if Eutropius’s use of anno septimo reflects inclusive dating, then he means that Julian was an emperor for six years, which would seem to be a gross error, or perhaps a subtle calculation: this would date Julian’s imperium to 357, when it seems that Julian received full command of Roman forces in Gaul (see chapter 2, n. 153). Of course, Eutropius may simply be in error here, using septimo instead of octauo or nono (the manuscript tradition appears to offer no alternatives), but it is also possible that he does not in fact employ inclusive dating here. Cf. Eutrop. 10.9.4, for Constans being “in the seventeenth year of his imperium” (anno imperii septimo decimo) when he died in January 350; Constans had been promoted to Caesar on 25 December 333. 23.  Marcos 2014: 762–63.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    35

whom was Constantius himself, and later, as Augustus, Constantius probably did the same for his own Caesars. This interest in using the symbolism of dates, which were noted and celebrated by contemporaries,24 to convey broader messages is also apparent in the case of Themistius, as we shall see below. Constantius paid close attention to his public messaging, as did his rhetoricians and panegyrists. In addition to military and political assistants, Constantius needed loyal supporters in the cultural and intellectual arena, men whom he could employ to communicate his preferred image among the educated elite, men whose paideia he could link with his own. As I will argue below, when we consider Constantius’s self-presentation in the Demegoria Constantii (Public Speech of Constantius) as a man of learning and one who values philosophy, and Julian’s and Themistius’s similar presentations of the emperor in their panegyrics, it seems that Constantius employed Julian and Themistius so that he could improve public perceptions of his paideia through their orations. Julian’s position as Constantius’s cousin, and so a member of the imperial family, gave him a distinctive and favored status; but Julian also was very learned, and his intellectual credentials would have reflected well on Constantius as one who had been ultimately responsible for his upbringing,25 and who subsequently chose to make him his colleague and fellow philosopher, as Themistius puts it in his second oration.26 As for Themistius, that he saw himself as playing the role of a literary and political assistant to Constantius is manifest not only in his Oration 1, but also in his subsequent panegyrics before Constantius and other emperors.27 Libanius had also praised Constantius in his Oration 59, but this speech was not innovative, nor was the emperor’s relationship with the Antiochene particularly notable. Indeed, the content and tone of Oration 59 reveal that Libanius was less than enthusiastic about his subject.28 Themistius, however, was another story. On 1 September 355, Constantius adlected the rhetorician to the Senate of Constantinople by means of the so-called Demegoria Constantii but actually an epistle to the Senate—which was read aloud as an oration—ostensibly because of Themistius’s standing as a prominent 24.  See Salzman 1990, for the Codex-Calendar or Chronograph of 354, which lists several important imperial anniversaries, including birthdays and investitures. 25.  See Bowersock 1978: 21–32; and Athanassiadi 1992: 13–51. Julian also engaged in public interventions on behalf of his friends in Asia Minor in which he may well have displayed his learning (see Jul. Ep. ad Them. 259B–60A). 26.  Them. Or. 2, 40A. 27.  E.g., Or. 4 on Constantius as a benefactor of Constantinople; Or. 5 to Jovian, a consular oration and an apologia of the emperor’s peace treaty with Persia; Or. 6 on the philanthropia and “brotherly love” of Valentinian and Valens; and Or. 8 on the phusis of Valens as emperor, esp. 104A–D, a section that Maisano 1995: 371 characterizes thus: “Il compito del filosofo è quello di essere consigliere e guida dell’uomo di stato” (“The task of the philosopher is to be the counselor and guide of the man of state”). See also Or. 34, 28, for Themistius and Theodosius. 28.  MacCormack 1990: 187. See also n. 126 below.

36      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

philosopher and professor in Constantinople.29 In fact, Constantius singles out Themistius’s paideusis (system of education) as sufficient for the honor of adlection.30 Presumably paideusis is a reference to Themistius’s orations, both public and private.31 By his praise the emperor also builds up Themistius’s public standing as a philosopher and a judge of people and polity,32 and in so doing builds up the potency and value of Themistius’s speeches on him, both past and future. Within the text of this letter, the emperor describes Themistius as raised to clarissimus (full senatorial rank),33 which is consistent with Constantius’s placement of the Senate of Constantinople on an equal footing with its counterpart at Rome in terms of ranking, before late 355;34 moreover, the opening words (incipit) of the Demegoria Constantii refer to Themistius as clarissimus (most renowned). No doubt this adlection was also a reward for the debut imperial speech that Themistius had delivered publicly for Constantius some years before (see below). The emperor’s epistle to the Senate even reads as a kind of panegyric on Themistius,35 an appropriate gesture from one whom Themistius had praised, and a missive that illustrates the kind of imperial paideia that the rhetorician and philosopher’s first imperial oration spoke to. Remarkably, it has been suggested that Themistius had a hand in the writing of his own letter of adlection, because the style and messaging of the letter closely parallel those of Themistius’s orations.36 To be sure, this letter is quite discursive and flowery in tone and seems to be unlike anything else that we have by Constantius, although the other texts attributed to the emperor may not be fully representative of his education and cultural achievements.37 If correct, Themistius’s authorship, or perhaps just his input or influence,38 would further indicate the 29.  Demeg. Const. 19A–20C, 21A–D. Cf. Lib. Ep. 12 Norman (434 Foerster). For a brief discussion of the Demegoria Constantii, see Vanderspoel 1995: 87–88. For a discussion of the contents of this imperial letter and an English translation of it with commentary, see Heather and Moncur 2001: 97–114. This letter was read aloud before the Senate by the proconsul Iustinus on Constantius’s behalf. On adlection to the senate and the obligations and privileges of senatorial rank in the later empire, see A. H. M. Jones 1986: 530–42. See also Millar 1992: 290–313. 30.  Demeg. Const. 19D, trans. Heather and Moncur 2001. 31.  The public oration would be Oration 1. On Themistius’s private orations, esp. Orr. 24 and 30, see Penella 2000. 32.  Demeg. Const. 20C. 33.  Demeg. Const. 19B, 22B. On the rank of clarissimus, see A. H. M. Jones 1986: 528–31. 34.  On the relationship between Rome and Constantinople in Themistius’s Oration 3 and Constantius’s restructuring of the Senate of Constantinople and its rank alongside the Senate of Rome, see Heather and Moncur 2001: 120–25, esp. 122. Cf. Skinner 2008, who argues for Constantius’s restructuring at a much earlier date. See also Moser 2018: 189–94, 214–76. 35.  Vanderspoel 1995: 88: “His letter to the Senate, which reads like a panegyric.” 36.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 97 n. 154, 100 n. 162. 37.  On these texts, see Teitler 1992. See also n. 43 below. 38.  Cf. n. 52 below.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    37

emperor’s strong interest in being closely associated not only with philosophy but also with paideia more broadly, in addition to his praise for these topics in his epistle. In any case, the substance of the emperor’s missive to the Senate of Constantinople shows him to be quite interested in being perceived as an educated man. In it Constantius declares that he desired philosophy, and by extension paideia, to shine forth in Constantinople, a desire he considered already fulfilled in the person of Themistius, who resided and taught there. Further, the addition of this philosopher to the Senate would enhance both parties.39 By closely associating Constantius with Themistius, this publicity would have had the added benefit of promoting Constantius’s learning in the same city. It is with this in mind that we will view Julian’s first panegyric on Constantius, which the Caesar wrote shortly after the Demegoria Constantii (see the second section, below). The choice of date for Themistius’s adlection would also reinforce the conclusion that Constantius was keenly interested in broadcasting himself as a learned emperor and a patron of learned men, since 1 September was also the date on which Pliny the Younger had delivered his speech of praise on the emperor Trajan before the Senate of Rome (1 September 100).40 If the date for Themistius’s adlection was selected for this reason, we can see that there are two implicit allusions at play, each reinforcing the other: one connects Themistius with Pliny, and the other pairs Constantius with Trajan. Although there is no evidence that Themistius (or Constantius, for that matter) had read Pliny’s Panegyricus or gratiarum actio (speech of thanks) to Trajan, Pliny was an influential model for subsequent Roman senators and Latin panegyrists in the West during the fourth century, such as Claudius Mamertinus and Q. Aurelius Symmachus.41 Pliny’s influence conceivably extended to the Senate of Constantinople, whose members still conducted state business in Latin during Themistius’s time there, and so would have looked to their Latin forebears and counterparts in Rome for models on all senatorial matters. Pliny also had been governor of Bithynia-Pontus under Trajan and had produced a popular letter collection.42 This illustrious career would have made Pliny somewhat well known in the Greek East. Compared to Themistius and Julian, Constantius’s education appears to have been modest.43 Nevertheless, Constantius actively and variously advanced many learned men, including Libanius, Themistius, Julian, Anatolius of Berytus, 39.  Demeg. Const. 20D–21A, 23C–D. 40.  For an introduction to Pliny’s Panegyricus, see Roche 2011. 41.  See MacCormack 1975 and García Ruiz 2013b. 42.  On Pliny’s governorship of Bithynia-Pontus, see Talbert 1980. On Pliny’s letters, see Gibson and Morello 2012. 43.  See Arce 1979 and Henck 2001a, who discuss Constantius’s education, which was by no means lacking and surpassed the education of most of his immediate predecessors and successors, although it paled in comparison to Julian’s.

38      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

Himerius, and Bemarchius, and supported Greek paideia.44 Ammianus’s verdict on Constantius’s literary achievements has been seen as excessive,45 but his opinion could have been shared by others and could have stimulated an imperial response. If so, the argument that Themistius’s first imperial oration was designed to construct Constantius’s image as an emperor of paideia among his subjects is even stronger. It appears that may also have been the case with Valens, whom Ammianus lambasted as uneducated and vulgar but whom in several orations Themistius praised for his education.46 Whether Constantius or Valens lacked learning is beside the point; what matters is that Themistius saw his speeches as playing a role in shoring up emperors’ public images, specifically regarding their paideia. In fact, it is no coincidence that while Ammianus depicts Valens as deficient in erudition, he portrays the emperor’s flatterers as erudite men, in an apparent allusion to Themistius.47 Moreover, the historian’s description of Constantius as a “diligent aspirant to learning” (doctrinarum diligens affectator) conveys that the emperor himself was very much interested in improving his reputation as a man of letters, perhaps partly because of a perceived deficit of paideia.48 This view is in line with Constantius’s dissemination of the speech that he had delivered before the Illyrian army to depose Vetranio in December 350, and with the fact that he desired panegyrics from Themistius, whose learning he praised and tethered himself to in a letter to the Senate of Constantinople. Thus, by supporting and closely associating himself with learned men such as Themistius and Julian, among others, Constantius seemingly hoped to increase his own paideia, or at least the perception of it. A similar motive would partly explain Constantine’s promotions of learned men to high office, such as Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius, who had produced panegyrical verses on the emperor a few years before his first monthlong appointment as urban prefect of Rome in 329 (he would hold this post again in 333).49 Constantius’s advancement of Themistius to the senatorial order is almost certainly connected with the latter’s delivery of his Oration 1, notwithstanding the emperor’s emphasis in his Demegoria on Themistius being a gifted and true phi44.  Emphasized by Van Hoof 2013. See also CTh 14.1.1; Van Hoof 2013: 388 n. 9; and Brendel 2017: 250 n. 863, for a law dated to 360 that presents Constantius and Julian as interested in advancing learned men; and Zon. 13.11.13. On Anatolius, see Bradbury 2000. 45.  Amm. 21.16.4. Cf. Arce 1979; Teitler 1992; and Henck 2001a. 46.  Amm. 29.1.11: Valentem, subrusticum hominem; 31.14.5: subagrestis ingenii, nec bellicis nec liberalibus studiis eruditus; 31.14.8: inconsummatus et rudis. Cf. Amm. 30.4.2; Tränkle 2008. For Themistius’s panegyrics before Valens, see Orations 6–11; cf. Vanderspoel 1995: 155–85; and Swain 2021. 47.  Amm. 31.4.4: eruditis adulatoribus; Heather 1991: 134; Heather and Moncur 2001: 201; cf. den Boeft et al. 2018: 59–60. 48.  Amm. 21.16.4. See also Ps.-Aur. Vict. Epit. 42.18: facundiae cupidus; and nn. 8 and 45 above. 49.  PLRE 1.649, Publilius Optatianus signo Porphyrius; Barnes 1975; Wienand 2012b. Optatianus also served as proconsul of Achaia between 326 and 329.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    39

losopher as prime among the reasons for his adlection. Indeed, he also notes that Themistius was qualified for service in the Senate because of his “forcefulness in words,”50 a phrase that has rightly been highlighted as of particular importance for understanding Themistius’s value to Constantius as an orator and,51 I would argue, as a senator. In fact, when Themistius traveled to Rome as an envoy of the Senate of Constantinople to deliver a speech before Constantius in 357, he described himself as “forceful in speaking.”52 In my view, “forcefulness in words” strongly suggests that Constantius was thinking of Oration 1, which Themistius had consciously crafted, with its focus on philosophy and particularly philanthropia (humanity), as an innovative panegyric and one that implicitly put forth that, while Greek paideia had long been associated with paganism, it was quite compatible with Christianity.53 As has been observed, Themistius managed to offer a kind of paganism that made confrontation with Christianity less likely.54 But we might go further here and say that Oration 1 is a significant imperial speech that advertised that pagan-Christian cooperation over conflict was both possible and desirable. It is difficult to underestimate the value of such a message to Constantius, who ruled over an Eastern population the majority of whom still supported traditional cult.55 Constantius’s language in the Demegoria (or Themistius’s, if he wrote or influenced it) clearly demonstrates that he was interested in showcasing that he had a measure of learning, and so could truly appreciate Themistius as a learned man and a philosopher,56 just as Themistius himself would praise Constantius as a

50.  Demeg. Const. 19C: λόγων δεινότης, trans. Heather and Moncur. 51.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 77. 52.  Them. Or. 3, 44C: τὸν εἰπεῖν δεινόν. It is possible that Constantius’s and Themistius’s references to “forcefulness in words/speaking” are a stock description taken from Demetrius, who discusses such forcefulness in his rhetorical handbook, On Style (27.255). However, Socrates was far more famous, and the reference would seem to be to Plato’s Apology (17B: δεινὸς λέγειν), since it is made with respect to Themistius as a philosopher; indeed, Constantius makes an unmistakable allusion to Socrates in another passage of his Demegoria (22C). This might further suggest Themistius’s input or influence on this imperial letter, though it may also reflect Constantius’s own paideia. 53.  On philanthropia in religion and statecraft during the fourth century, see Downey 1955. On Themistius’s concept of philanthropia, see Daly 1975. For Themistius as a useful and innovative panegyrist, see Heather 1998: 135–39; and Heather and Moncur 2001: 5–11, 73–74, 97–101. See also Or. 2, 27B, where Themistius makes an interesting reference to Socrates and the famous oracular pronouncement of Apollo on the philosopher’s wisdom; and 27C–D, for an apparent shift from Apollo to the Christian God and the message that the two coexisted. This compatibility is further stressed at 32D–33A, 38B, 39A, and 39D. 54.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 100. 55.  E.g., Hopkins 1998. 56.  Cf. Swift and Oliver 1962, AÉ 1967, 478, for an imperial letter in Latin about a Philippus that was inscribed at Ephesus, and seems to have been written by Constantius to honor his trusted praetorian prefect, Flavius Philippus, ca. 344.

40      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

philosopher because he had raised Julian, a fellow philosopher, to the Caesarship. Each image reinforced the other. Questions linger, however: Why philosophy and philanthropia instead of other topics, and why did Themistius place these at the center of his first two speeches when he did? Menander Rhetor had prescribed philanthropia as one of the virtues with which a panegyrist could close his discussion of an emperor’s deeds in wartime,57 but Themistius boldly made this virtue the very topic of the panegyric. By focusing on Constantius’s philanthropia in civil affairs, Themistius was able at once to offer something new and to avoid the emperor’s military record,58 as we shall see below. The rhetorician-senator would repeat this approach in his Oration 6, dedicated to the imperial brothers Valentinian and Valens in 364, neither of whom he praised for military success but for brotherly concord, which is equated with a love for mankind (philanthropia).59 Compared to the rather lengthy imperial speech that Libanius had delivered (or would deliver) on Constantius and Constans ca. 348 (Or. 59),60 Themistius’s debut imperial panegyric is remarkable for its relative brevity and banality, for its use of well-worn tropes, such as cattledrivers, shepherds, victors in athletic contests, charioteers, pilots, and physicians.61 And this despite its seemingly innovative use of philosophy in relating the emperor’s judicious wielding of power, that is, in consistently linking Constantius’s philanthropia to his self-restraint toward his subjects.62 Themistius dedicates the vast majority of his first oration to discussing both philanthropia and self-restraint as fundamental and correlative imperial virtues that are unique to Constantius;63 indeed, his first oration can be seen as a kind of philosophical treatise or handbook on these topics—an example of “ascending communication.” Yet at the same time such messaging seems directed downward to imperial 57.  Men. Rhet. 2.374.25–375.4 (2.1.27 Race). 58.  Cf. Amm. 14.10.15, where Ammianus puts humanitas, the Latin equivalent of philanthropia, into the mouth of Constantius, who offers it as a reason for why he decided not to engage the Alamanni in 354. In light of Themistius’s use of philanthropia for the reason that I have suggested here, questions thus arise whether Ammianus deftly utilized humanitas as an allusion to the panegyrist, as an allusion to Constantius’s use of humanitas in his communications, or both. On this episode in Ammianus, see Marcos 2015: 679–80. See also nn. 62 and 82 below. 59.  The heading of this oration is Philadelphoi e peri philanthropias. The closest that Themistius comes to praising Valentinian’s and Valens’s military abilities is his reference to their (appropriated) titles of Persicus and Germanicus (Or. 6, 79D–80A), titles that he characteristically passes over quickly and in favor of the emperors’s ciuilitas (see also Heather and Moncur 2001: 192 n. 185). 60.  On this oration and its approach, see Ross 2016a. 61.  Them. Or. 1, 9C–10C, 13A–14B. 62.  E.g., Them. Or. 1, 16A–C; cf. Amm. 14.10.15: modestiae humanitatique; and n. 58 above. Constantius himself noted his philanthropia in a letter to Athanasius that allowed the bishop to return to Alexandria (see Whitby 1999: 79–80, 86 n. 19). 63.  Them. Or. 1, 1A–12A, 12C–14A, 15B–18B.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    41

subjects, to the Eastern elite in particular—an example of “descending communication” (a suggestion supported further below). In 100, Pliny had centered his praise on Trajan’s modestia and moderatio, that is, on the emperor’s self-restraint in the exercise of power.64 However, unlike Themistius, Pliny did not prominently link these to imperial philanthropia and to Trajan exclusively; rather Trajan was presented as exhibiting the virtues of other good emperors in general, such as Caesar Augustus, Vespasian, and Titus, in contrast to the unrestrained Domitian, and so displayed good rulership. In contrast to Julian’s panegyrics, there is little in Themistius’s first imperial speech about Constantius. Rather, its contents were for him in the sense that they appear edifying while also implicitly promoting him as an emperor who could appreciate that edification (an approach that is more pronounced in Themistius’s second panegyric).65 Themistius’s aims are revealed to be the improvement of Constantius’s public image by means of carefully selected and concentrated praise of the emperor’s education and his regard for philosophy as components or foundations of his rule. The emperor presumably knew about the quality of his own education and credentials as a lover of wisdom, so the panegyrist’s relevant comments can be taken as instances of “descending communication” to those who did not yet know. Themistius began his First Oration to Constantius (Or. 1), which is titled “On Humanity or Constantius” in the heading,66 by addressing Constantius directly and asserting both that the speech he is about to give is an independent one and that he is a truthful praise-giver.67 To be sure, such assertions of sincerity were stock claims made by panegyrists,68 but Themistius’s language and assertions are notable in fourth-century panegyrical discourse. He elaborates that the things he will praise are things in accordance with philosophy,69 and he ends his panegyric by reaffirming this.70 So those things Themistius commends in the emperor are those he himself admires71—comments that are meant to throw into relief Constantius’s paideia, in addition to Themistius’s independence as a panegyrist, since 64.  Plin. Pan. 3.2, 56.3; Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 41–42. 65.  Van Hoof (2013: 391 and n. 19) has seen the lack of specifics about Constantius in Or. 1 and the advisory nature of the oration but not how it simultaneously reflects on Constantius’s paideia. Themistius’s subsequent speeches on Jovian and Valentinian and Valens also lack details on these emperors’ lives and actions. The rhetorician-senator sought to praise and edify in a rather novel way. Cf. Aristid. Or. 26 (On Rome). 66.  Περὶ φιλανθρωπίας ἢ Κωνστάντιος. 67.  Or. 1, 1A; cf. 5A. For introductions to Oration 1, see Vanderspoel 1995: 77–83; Ritoré Ponce 2000: 101–5; and Heather and Moncur 2001: 73–77. See also Or. 2, 29A, where Themistius repeats his claim to be telling the truth about Constantius. 68.  See the introduction, n. 36. 69.  Them. Or. 1, 1A. Heather and Moncur (2001: 7–8, 75, 78 n. 86) have seen a close connection with Dion’s Oration 3. On Dion’s speeches to Trajan, see Moles 1990. 70.  Or. 1, 18B. 71.  Or. 1, 1A.

42      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

orators could be expected to praise and to admire whatever it was that the emperor did. Indeed, Themistius makes a distinction between a flatterer and a praise-giver, clarifying that he is the latter.72 An imperial praise-giver knows how to apply praise properly in keeping with paideia and virtue, both on his part and that of his emperor; a flatterer does not. Thus, Themistius, not Constantius, redefined the relationship between praise and paideia/virtue by means of his own person, a view underscored by the fact that he would accept adlection to the senatorial order, which exemplified worldly ambition.73 As an avowed philosopher, Themistius could not claim to desire or even to value earthly honors—thus his rejection of them, made more emphatic because made at the very end of his oration—74 but Constantius could offer such honors to him under the guise of their compatibility with virtue. After all, according to Themistius, Constantius himself was both emperor and philosopher. Moreover, he states that he will not focus on the traditional, material elements of emperorship, such as an emperor’s trappings of power and his military engagements and victories.75 Constantius’s imperial predecessors do not even find a place in this oration, beyond the reference to him as the third generation of a dynasty.76 Instead, the material for Themistius’s speech of praise on Constantius is the immaterial and the timeless, that is, the emperor’s mind and true essence.77 As Themistius puts it, But these men [other panegyrists] equally fail to understand that every king has but small power to maintain his rule by his hands or even his entire body in comparison with the force of his mind (ten romen tes dianoias); whoever is able to see that, he is the one who can distinguish the true king and admires you, not what is yours.78

This reference to the imperial mens (mind/understanding) is suggestive of imperial paideia. As Julian would put it later, in a formulation similar to Themistius’s, Constantius toppled Vetranio with the force of his arguments.79 In fact, Constantius’s intelligence and its positive role in his decision-making are at the heart of Themistius’s first oration, and to a lesser extent Julian’s. And this choice to deviate 72.  Or. 1, 3C–D. 73.  Cf. Van Hoof 2013: 393–96. 74.  Them. Or. 1, 18A–B. 75.  Or. 1, 2A–B. 76.  Or. 1, 2B. On the evolution of dynastic legitimacy and the principle of succession, see Ando 2000: 33–40; and Börm 2015. 77.  Or. 1, 2B–C, 5A–B, 7C. Themistius would take a similar approach in his Oration 8 on the “nature” (φύσεως) of Valens as emperor in 368. 78.  Or. 1, 2B: τὴν ῥώμην τῆς διανοίας, trans. Heather and Moncur. 79.  Jul. Or. 1, 33A: ἡ ῥώμη . . . τῶν λόγων; cf. 31D. See also Jul. Or. 3, 76B, where Julian praises Constantius’s “shrewdness” (ἀγχίνοιαν) immediately before praising his speechmaking in the episode with Vetranio.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    43

from the conventions of panegyric is bold not only because it entailed a more creative approach to commending Constantius, but also because it implies and advertises a certain degree of intimacy with the emperor that is not common in such speeches.80 At several points in Oration 1, Themistius chooses to break off his philosophical tutorial to touch on recent military and political affairs, specifically Constantius’s foreign policy with Persia and some unknown legal reform or indulgence involving the removal of capital punishment,81 though this is for a particular crime and is not a blanket moratorium.82 Curiously, the emperor’s Persian policy—a matter that would have been of no small interest to an Eastern audience—is kept vague, while more is said about his display of clemency. Such vagueness is a notable feature of Themistius’s first imperial speech, hinting at the emperor’s lackluster Eastern foreign policy, for, as we shall see in Julian’s own Oration 1 (in the next section), Constantius’s record against the Persians left much to be desired in terms of producing traditional material worthy of praise, such as undisputed victories in the field. This led the orator, who could not focus on Constantius’s deeds domi militiaeque (in peacetime and in war), to comment on civic events rather than military topics. Indeed, Themistius pays Constantius’s courage or military prowess mere lip service, which also suggests that the emperor’s military résumé was thin.83 Instead Themistius praises Constantius’s civic or political virtues—his mildness (i.e., clemency), fairness, and gentleness84—which Julian subsequently also singles out for praise in his cousin, and which Themistius’s audience at Ancyra may have found more interesting. Themistius presents these virtues as the components and manifestations of Constantius’s philanthropia, which needed to be demonstrated through argumentation. To establish that the emperor’s benevolence was truly praiseworthy required the panegyrist first to connect it with Constantius’s legitimacy and his secure hold on imperial power, to demonstrate that the emperor

80.  See also Them. Or. 1, 3D, 5A. In this respect, Claudius Mamertinus’s and Ausonius’s panegyrics are close analogues. 81.  Or. 1, 12A–C, 14B–15B. 82.  Skinner 2015: 237–38 recently has seen this as a reference to Constantius’s clemency toward those rioters who were responsible for the lynching of Hermogenes in 342, and so has used it, among other items, to date Themistius’s speech to that year. However, Themistius’s reference to the emperor’s setting aside of capital punishment is so vague that it could refer to anything or anyone. Indeed, Leppin 2015: 200–201 has interpreted this same passage as a reference to an amnesty for supporters of Magnentius after the battle of Mursa in late 351. Such adaptable vagueness is perhaps what the panegyrist intended: great specificity in the promotion of Constantius’s clemency narrowed the value of the speech, whereas greater generalization increased its value as a seemingly ever-current testament to Constantius’s philanthropia. See also appendix A. For the location of the battle of Mursa, see map 1. 83.  Or. 1, 5C–D. Cf. Or. 15, where Themistius says more about Theodosius’s military readiness. 84.  Or. 1, 4D: τὸδε δὴ πρᾀον καὶ τὸ επεικὲς καὶ τὸ ἥμερον.

44      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

figure 1 . Constantius II. Antioch, solidus, late 347–355 CE. Obverse: FL IVL

CONSTANTIVS PERP AVG. Reverse: GLORIA ROMANORVM, with Constantius in a quadriga scattering coins and holding an eagle-tipped scepter. RIC 8.518.77. Courtesy of the British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, inv. 1867, 0101.918. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

dispensed benefits to his subjects from a position of strength, not weakness, and thus displayed true generosity (Fig. 1).85 Regarding the parameters of imperial power, the rhetorician-senator represents the emperor’s will as absolute, asserting that “he is, I think, himself the law and is above the laws.”86 The statement suggests that Constantius’s position had been assailed or challenged in some way(s) recently, that is, prior to late 350.87 This interpretation would help to explain Themistius’s portrayal of the punishments meted out by Constantius as mild and fair, though little detail is provided.88 If Constantius had been challenged, then Themistius’s panegyric, with its assertions of imperial benevolence, justice, and exclusive juridical authority, was a response to such a confrontation—a conclusion that is consistent with panegyric’s function as one of the “communicative actions” of Roman imperial government to stimulate provincial loyalty to the emperor.89 The emperor’s subjects celebrated his rule and so helped to legitimize it, and Themistius may be gently implying that, if Constantius 85.  See Or. 1, 2B, where Themistius early on notes that Constantius held power as the third generation of a dynasty; cf. 7B. See also fig. 1 and n. 176 below, for Constantius’s scattering of coins, and so his liberalitas. On the imperial ideal of liberalitas, see Noreña 2011a: 82–92; and Manders 2012: 165–69. 86.  Or. 1, 15B; cf. Heather and Moncur 2001: 93 n. 138. 87.  Cf. chapter 3, n. 193. 88.  Or. 1, 13A–16B. 89.  On these actions, see Ando 2000, esp. 73–273. See also Hopkins 1978b: 197–242; Rees 2002; Noreña 2011a; Manders 2012; and Hekster 2015: 25–38.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    45

wished to maintain that praise and support, he needed to continue to take their needs and wants into account when making policy.90 Repaying the Emperor with Words Sometime after Julian’s investiture as Caesar at Mediolanum (Milan) on 6 November 355, Themistius delivered his Second Oration to Constantius (Or. 2) before the Senate of Constantinople, but not before Constantius himself.91 The purpose of Themistius’s second oration, which appears to date to November or December 355, was twofold: to repay the emperor with words for adlecting him to the Senate of Constantinople, particularly since Constantius had offered fulsome praise of Themistius in a public letter and speech; and to develop and reinforce his earlier presentation of the emperor in Oration 1.92 Members of the Eastern literati, such as Themistius, were quite conscious of debts of honor and were often eager to repay those to whom they were owed, especially if the creditor was the emperor himself, in the hopes of receiving further favors in exchange.93 Indeed, Themistius alludes to Constantius’s letter of adlection and praises the emperor for expressing his gratitude with words, which were once thought to be the preserve of philosophy.94 He also alludes to Julian as Constantius’s colleague and fellow philosopher in Oration 2, although at the very end of the speech, which suggests that these remarks were tacked on as Themistius was completing his composition, and that this was done closer to 6 November than later, since we would have expected more on the new Caesar, and earlier in the oration.95 In an instance of circular logic, Themistius portrays Constantius as a philosopher because he has chosen a fellow philosopher in Julian to be his colleague, that is, because of their similar possession of excellence.96 By implication, he also presents Julian as fit for rule. Thus, it seems that Constantius’s public image as a philosopher and his paideia broadly conceived were of some interest to him in the East, particularly since his military résumé seems to have been relatively thin, and Julian had as yet no military credit or qualifications to speak of.97 In short, Constantius would have desired to have an aspect 90.  Or. 1, 3D–4A; cf. 11B. 91.  Or. 2, 24A–C, 40A. See also Gladis 1907: 7–8. 92.  On the date of Oration 2 and its purpose, see Vanderspoel 1995: 88–90, 91–94; and Ritoré Ponce 2000: 135–37. 93.  See Lib. Or. 1, 111–12, for Libanius’s public speech to the praetorian prefect Strategius Musonianus as a repayment of a debt; and Jul. Ep. ad Lib. (52 Wright, 96 Bidez), for the emperor reminding Libanius of his debt (chreos) and requesting a panegyric (logos) from him. On the role of gratitude in a reciprocal exchange of honor, see Lendon 1997: 154–60. On Roman patronage, see Garnsey 2010. 94.  Them. Or. 2, 28B–C; cf. 29C. 95.  Them. Or. 2, 40A. Cf. Jul. Or. 3, 94B, where Julian waits until near the end of his oration on Constantius to mention his cousin’s name. 96.  Them. Or. 2, 40A; cf. Or. 4, 58D–59A. 97.  See appendix B.

46      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

of his public face highlighted that could be viewed more positively and enhanced with little difficulty—thus the domi over the militiae. This focus on the civil rather than the military is first manifest in the dedication of Oration 2 to Constantius in the manuscripts, which includes a revealing subtitle: “without a doubt because the philosopher is emperor, or [my speech] of thanks.”98 Having been praised as a true philosopher in Constantius’s Demegoria, Themistius needed to display his philosophical acumen, his eloquence, and his usefulness, especially since the emperor had presented him as an example to other potential honorands.99 Themistius commences his second imperial panegyric by explaining how he as a (true) philosopher justified entering politics.100 After offering this explanation, the dutiful panegyrist-senator portrays the emperor in keeping with how Constantius had represented himself generally when he associated himself with Themistius in his letter of adlection: as “a very philosophical man” and a ruler who contributes to the philosopher,101 and more so than Alexander of Macedon had done. The description places Constantius in high kingly company, and, by implication, sets Themistius alongside philosophers such as Aristotle, who famously had tutored Alexander in his youth.102 Themistius’s second speech is a rather unusual specimen. With references to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Cleanthes, Xenophon, and others, and in many other respects, it reads as a kind of philosophical handbook. In this oration Themistius constructs Constantius’s public profile as a “philosopher and king/ emperor.”103 This characterization is also implied in the incipit of Oration 2, quoted above.104 Certainly Themistius’s numerous references to philosophers reflect his interest in advertising his learning and qualifications as a philosopher, but the general survey of philosophers provided here may be a way of introducing these wise men to Constantius for his edification in philosophy. Indeed, Themistius would adopt a similar approach in early 381, when he produced an oration for the Eastern emperor Theodosius that covers topics ranging from Homer and Thucydides to justice and self-restraint, all in the service of promoting the emperor’s moral worth, his arete (excellence), and good government (Or. 15).105 That Themistius would choose to concentrate on similar topics in much of Orations 2 and 15 suggests that the two speeches served a similar function: to enhance public percep98.  ὅτι μάλιστα φιλόσοφος ὁ βασιλεύς, ἢ χαριστήριος [λόγος]. 99.  Demeg. Const. 19A. 100.  Or. 2, 24C–26A. 101.  Or. 2, 26A: φιλοσοφώτερος . . . ὁ Κωνστάντιος ξυμβαλεῖν ἀνδρὶ φιλοσόφῳ. 102.  Or. 2, 26A. On Themistius’s Herrscherideal, see Straub 1964: 160–74. 103.  See Or. 2, 29D. 104.  Or. 2, 24A–C; cf. Vanderspoel 1995: 91–92. 105.  For an introduction to this oration, see Heather and Moncur 2001: 230–35. Themistius’s approach is also evident in his consular oration to Jovian in 364 (Or. 5); see n. 13 above.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    47

tions of Constantius and Theodosius as learned occupants of the imperial office. The panegyrist’s rigorous presentation of philosophers in Oration 2 also suggests that they were (or should be) valued by Constantius, and thus that he was interested in advancing other such men within his government. Themistius concludes his second panegyric, which is about as long as the first, by once again invoking the thoroughly wise Plato and offering this philosopher as a model for how Constantius might rule moving forward.106 As with his comments on imperial empathy, punishment, and law in Oration 1, one suspects that Themistius is skillfully alluding to some less than enlightened behavior by Constantius. Indeed, he notes that, while an emperor and a tyrant struggle and oppose one another,107 it is understanding and philosophy that mark the one who rules well,108 that is, the emperor, Constantius. If Themistius has a particular “tyrant” in mind here, it would seem to be Magnentius, whom Constantius finally defeated in late 353. But this also might be a reference to Gallus Caesar, who was executed in late 354 because of behavior deemed rebellious and in the year after Constantius’s civil war against Magnentius.109 And if so, Constantius’s suppression of Gallus may have been followed by some standard administrative housecleaning in the East, actions that probably left many holders of elite status there in a state of some trepidation over the emperor’s intentions moving forward, perhaps not unlike the atmosphere during summer 337.110 Constantius had praised Themistius for his “forcefulness in words,” and the panegyrist repaid the compliment by using those words to dress Constantius in a philosopher’s cloak. He also repaid the emperor by drawing attention to his oratorical ability. In fact, both Themistius and Julian, in describing Constantius’s defeat of Vetranio by means of persuasion,111 compare him subtly with Pericles.112 And Aurelius Victor would commend Constantius for his removal of Vetranio by the sheer force of his eloquence or learning,113 a portrayal conspicuous for its unanimity with these two panegyrists in terms of Constantius’s paideia that is suggestive of official ideology.114 The interpretation advanced here, which reads Themistius’s second speech as dedicated to improving the emperor’s image and power 106.  Or. 2, 40A–B. Cf. Or. 8, 105A–C, where Themistius depicts Valens as the ideal Platonic ruler. 107.  Or. 2, 35C. 108.  Or. 2, 36A. 109.  On Gallus’s deposition and execution, see Jer. s. a. 354; Amm. 14.11.20; Philostorg. HE 4.1, 4.1a; Soc. HE 2.34; Soz. HE 4.7; and Chron. Pasch. s. a. 355 (p. 541). On Gallus’s behavior at Antioch, see n. 228 below. 110.  On this atmosphere, see Marcos 2014. 111.  Them. Or. 2, 37B: ἡ Πειθώ; Jul. Or. 1, 33A: ἡ πειθώ. 112.  Maisano 1995: 200 n. 102. 113.  Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.1: facundiae ui; see n. 8 above. 114.  Cf. nn. 58 and 62 above.

48      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

through paideia, and more so than Oration 1, would also help to explain Themistius’s presentation of Julian as a philosopher, as the opposite of his brother Gallus, and therefore a far better choice for a colleague in empire. And Julian’s position was exceptional. A P O L I T IC A L A N D L I T E R A RY A PPA R I T OR : J U L IA N A S C A E S A R A N D PA N E G Y R I ST

As Caesar and prospective heir to empire, as a subordinate (apparitor), Julian was expected to assist his Augustan superior militarily and politically by serving in the field at the head of an army,115 and for about four years in Gaul the Caesar did not disappoint. Compared to the power-sharing system of Diocletian, who had split his imperium with a fellow Augustus and two Caesars, Constantius more narrowly limited the power and authority of his two Caesars to their exercise of military authority; both Gallus and Julian apparently lacked the right to publish legislation in their own names (ius edicendi).116 This suggests that Constantius, who was sole Augustus in his own system and who took on but one colleague at a time (in a dyarchy), only reluctantly shared power, in contrast to Diocletian, and that Constantius preferred to retain unitary hold on imperium in the military and civilian spheres.117 Prospective heirs, on occasion, had also delivered orations on behalf of their emperors in the Senate of Rome during the early empire, speeches that played a role in policymaking.118 But we know of no other occasion when one emperor praised his superior in a formal epideictic speech, and in Greek instead of Latin. Although Julian’s three Greek panegyrics have been understudied, they have begun to attract more attention in recent years.119 As noted above, Constantius was also in need of literary and political assistants to help him to construct and enhance his public image among the educated elite. Julian’s First Panegyric on Constantius (Or. 1), which is dedicated to Constantius

115.  Amm. 16.7.3: Caesarem . . . apparitoremque fidum; 17.11.1: apparitorem Caesarem; and 20.8.6: apparitor fidus; cf. García Ruiz 2013a: 92–94. On Julian as a military subordinate as Caesar, see Valensi 1957: 80–84; Blockley 1972a: 446–48, 452–53, 455–57; and Matthews 2007: 87–92. 116.  That is, they apparently could not initiate legislation. See Blockley 1972a, for Constantius’s careful limiting of the authority and powers of his two Caesars. For the apparently greater authority and powers of Diocletian’s Caesars, such as their apparent holding of the ius edicendi, see Corcoran 2000: 266–74. See also Waldron 2022: 103–6. 117.  Cf. Valensi 1957: 78, 84–86; Blockley 1980: 485. 118.  For Nero delivering a speech under Claudius in the Senate, see Suet. Nero 7.2 and Cass. Dio 60.33.9. For Hadrian’s oratio under Trajan, see SHA Hadr. 3.1, 3.11. For imperial orationes and senatus consulta, see Talbert 1984: 437–59. 119.  See Tantillo 1997: 11–50 (Or. 1); Tougher 2012 (Or. 1); García Ruiz 2012 (Or. 2) and 2015 (Orr. 1 and 2); Drake 2012 (Or. 3); Pagliara 2015 (Orr. 1 and 3); Alvino 2016 (Or. 3); and Ross 2018b (Or. 1).

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    49

and designated merely as an “encomium” in the heading,120 could not be more different than Themistius’s in most respects. For one, it was probably not delivered before Constantius, though the probability that it was increases the earlier the speech is dated, that is, to when both men resided in Milan in 355.121 While Themistius consciously had chosen to depart from the conventions of panegyric and to reimagine imperial speeches partly in the mode of philosophical tutorials, Julian just as purposefully opted to adhere to the rules of Menander Rhetor to a great extent when crafting his Oration 1;122 however, Julian did not adhere to Menander precisely, for philosophical elements are also present, which thus make the panegyrist-Caesar’s speech somewhat original.123 Indeed, Julian has been seen as attempting a hybrid,124 a panegyric that combined elements of Themistius’s philosophical approach with Libanius’s primary reliance on the Menandrian model.125 In contrast to Themistius’s opening remarks in his first speech about being a truthful panegyrist, Julian makes no such claims for himself early on, instead telling Constantius, perhaps sarcastically, that he had long desired to praise him for his valor and acts on the battlefield, including his suppression of tyrants.126 Nonetheless, such a statement suggests that Julian had taken up the writing of this panegyric voluntarily.127 If so, the Caesar can be seen acknowledging that speeches of praise played a positive and essential role in and for Roman government, and for his own profile and reputation, just as Themistius had acknowledged. It is conceivable that Julian delivered a shorter version of Oration 1 at Milan in late 355 and later polished this speech in written form for circulation.128 If so, he may have produced it specifically for Constantius’s visit to Rome in spring 357, when it seems that Constantius commemorated his uicennalia (twentieth 120.  See also Jul. Or. 1, 2D, where Julian uses ἐγκώμιον (in the plural) within the text to refer to his oration. On the typical late antique use of “encomium” over “panegyric” by Greek orators, see Pernot 2020: 35–36. For recent studies on Oration 1, see Tougher 2012; Pagliara 2015: 90–97; and Ross 2018b. 121.  See below and appendix C. 122.  On Menander as a model for Julian, see Tougher 2012: 24–28. 123.  Tougher 2012: 23–26. Cf. Bowersock 1978: 37; and Athanassiadi 1992: 61–62. 124.  Tougher 2012: 23. 125.  See Gladis 1907: 15–19; and Tougher 2012: 22–24. Cf. Curta 1995: 185, for Themistius’s apparent influence on both of Julian’s panegyrics on Constantius. 126.  Jul. Or. 1, 1D. Cf. Lib. Or. 59, 1, who declares at the outset of his speech that he was not coerced into giving it, which would indicate just the opposite, as Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 162 have observed. If so, Julian may be relating that he had no interest in producing such a panegyric on Constantius. But the fact that he did so requires us to consider the potential diplomatic and other motives behind its production. Athanassiadi 1992: 61–62 has seen sarcasm elsewhere in this speech but has not considered that Julian may be sarcastic in his avowed interest in discussing Constantius’s victories against usurpers such as Vetranio and Magnentius. 127.  Cf. Allard 1906: I.365, for the view that Constantius asked or demanded (demanda) that Julian pronounce his panegyric before leaving for Gaul. 128.  Geffcken 1914: 26; Kennedy 1983: 27. See also appendix C.

50      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

anniversary of rule) as an Augustus since 337, his thirty-fifth year since his promotion to Caesar in 324, and/or his suppression of Magnentius in 353.129 In any case, Oration 1 would have been intended to celebrate a significant public event. This oration is also best seen as a bookish Caesar’s early declaration of loyalty to his Augustan superior,130 although it is no gratiarum actio, at least not in the formal sense.131 It has been concluded that Julian’s first panegyric served a diplomatic function in helping to maintain good relations between the Caesar and his Augustus.132 No doubt this was one of Julian’s chief concerns when he wrote his debut speech,133 but diplomacy through praise explains only one aspect of his first oration. Another, related feature is the skillful and detailed shaping of Constantius’s image within the text of the speech, which included both measured praise and indirect criticisms that would also have affected an audience’s perception of him. This dual approach suggests that Julian viewed his panegyric as benefitting not only Constantius but also himself, that his speech had a vital public role to play for both men beyond simply helping to maintain good relations between a Caesar and his Augustus generally. As we will see below, Julian, like Themistius, was interested in being bold in his mode of commending Constantius, but his praise is more nuanced, and he offered it for different ends. Indeed, close readings of Julian’s first panegyric reveal some implied criticisms of Constantius as emperor as well as some subtle examples of the Caesar’s partial independence as a panegyrist. The nature of these examples suggests that the learned Caesar also intended his oration to be an unorthodox “mirror for princes”: a “distorting mirror” for Constantius on his mixed record as emperor. Libanius’s Oration 59 on Constantius and Constans has also been seen as such a “mirror,”134 and Julian would have known Libanius’s speech and probably utilized it to some extent.135 Like their predecessors in praise-giving, both Julian and Themistius conceived of panegyric, in part, as a means to communicate a standard of behavior that the subject of their praise should (strive to) live up to. Signaling Praise, Veiling Criticism Some scholars have difficulty accepting that veiled criticism might exist in a speech on an emperor, as they view dissent as incompatible with the basic aim of the 129.  See Tantillo 1997: 36–40, for Julian’s panegyric having been produced for the occasion of Constantius’s uicennalia at Rome in 357; and appendix C. See also chapter 2, n. 95. 130.  Kennedy 1983: 27. 131.  See Ross 2018b: 189, 196. 132.  Bowersock 1978: 37; and Athanassiadi 1992: 60–61. See also García Ruiz 2015: 157. 133.  For more on panegyric and diplomacy, see chapter 2. 134.  See Callu 1987. Cf. Sen. Clem. 1.1, where Seneca describes his oration as a speculum for the young and still receptive Nero in 55/6. 135.  Cf. Gladis 1907: 20–31; and Ross 2018b.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    51

praise-giving genre.136 But others have seen independence in Julian’s first panegyric and raised the possibility of reading this oration as critical of Constantius in several places,137 although the degree of independence that the Caesar displays in it has not been appreciated fully. As I will argue, veiled criticism, which depended on an assumed shared knowledge between a rhetorician and members of his audience,138 could be unspoken or spoken, and Julian’s orations show both forms of dissent. Near the outset of his Oration 1, Julian relates that audiences do not fault an orator if the subject of his praise does not deserve it,139 a strikingly intrepid statement to make in a panegyric on Constantius. We should also read this statement in light of the rhetorician-Caesar’s possibly sarcastic declaration that he had long desired to extol Constantius’s military achievements,140 for these two remarks neatly illustrate how Julian skillfully deployed praise and criticism in the same space, the one grafted onto the other. In fact, these comments appear all the more caustic in light of the fact that the Caesar makes no specific reference to “proof ” of the Augustus’s success in war.141 The proem of the speech is rather lengthy,142 in part because Julian dedicates some space to defining his role as a praise-giver by dissociating himself from panegyrists, poets, and rhetoricians, until he implies that he is actually a philosopher.143 That Julian carefully makes this point here supports reading the rest of what he says in his speech carefully as well. In keeping with what Menander prescribed and unlike Themistius, Julian lauded Constantius’s ancestry: his grandfathers, father, mother, and even his brothers.144 Ancestors and predecessors were typically employed in encomia as exempla (memorable precedents) for an honorand, against whom his achievements were evaluated—predecessors whom he lived up to if not excelled. In fact, Julian here embeds a kind of mini-panegyric on Constantine, who is adduced as Constantius’s initial exemplum in learning how to behave as an emperor.145 Remarkably, Fausta, Constantius’s mother, is also praised,146 which indicates that 136.  See Pernot 1993: 723; and Webb 2003: 134. Cf. Ahl 1984; Bartsch 2012; James 2012: 53–54, who has called for further consideration of veiled criticism in Julian’s panegyrics; and Pernot 2015: 102–11. Debate will and should shift to how best to define “veiled.” 137.  Bidez 1932: 6–9; Tougher 2012: 24–28. 138.  See Ahl 1984; Webb 2003: 134; and Pernot 2015: 102–11. 139.  Jul. Or. 1, 2B. 140.  See n. 126 above. 141.  Cf. n. 179; more below. 142.  Jul. Or. 1, 1D–5B. 143.  Or. 1, 3C–D; more below. Cf. Ross 2018b: 190–91, who considers that Julian also may be subtly presenting himself as a historian. 144.  Or. 1, 5B–10A. 145.  Or. 1, 7D–9B, 11D–12C. Interestingly, Constantine is said to have done much the same for Constantius in the military sphere (Euseb. VC 4.52.1). 146.  Or. 1, 9B–C.

52      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

her memory, stained since 326—in the dynastic affair involving Crispus, Constantine’s eldest son by another woman—had been rehabilitated sometime before 355/6,147 or perhaps even by means of this very speech. It is also notable that Fausta’s link with Rome, her birthplace, is stressed; it is the first thing said about her and the first city connected with Constantius in Julian’s first panegyric,148 a city given dual honor as the mother and teacher of excellence.149 Therefore, discussing Fausta was purposeful and likely consonant with one of the main aims of the oration, which appears to have been to help to consolidate Constantius’s position in the West as the legitimate Augustus,150 with the implication that Julian was the legitimate Caesar in Gaul. Rome still mattered. In connection with this is the Caesar’s exposition of his Augustus’s eloquence. Indeed, he emphasizes Constantius’s persuasiveness by referencing it at the very beginning of the oration,151 then touches upon it,152 and finally elaborates on it when he relates the episode with Vetranio, whom Constantius famously “deposed” by means of a speech,153 which Julian seems to showcase as an example of Constantian ciuilitas (political civility/approachability). Moreover, he offers Constantius’s eloquence as a feature and an example of his paideia on a practical level. Constantius’s paideia had already been presented as an indication of and basis for his worthiness in holding imperial power, power that was in turn associated with his accomplishments as emperor.154 And yet Julian undercuts Constantius’s achievement by means of words by describing Vetranio as an “honourable and prudent old man, who used to change his opinions more easily than any child.”155 How potent was Constantius’s eloquence, or rather how potent did it need to be, to defeat such a man? Perhaps connected with Julian’s caustic phrasing here is the probability that Vetranio had actually taken up and laid down imperial authority 147.  On Julian’s references to Fausta and her sons, see Barnes and Vander Spoel 1984. See also Blockley 1972a: 457–58; and Vanderspoel 2020: 36–38, who rightly place emphasis on Constantine’s possible dynastic and personal motives. 148.  Or. 1, 5B–6C. 149.  Or. 1, 6B. 150.  Moser 2018: 280–81, 301. See also n. 218 below. 151.  Or. 1, 1D: λόγῳ καὶ πειθοῖ. 152.  Or. 1, 11C. 153.  Jul. Or. 1, 30B–33A, 47C–D. Cf. Jul. Or. 3, 76B–77D, where the episode with Vetranio at Naissus is described further; Them. Or. 3, 45C; Zos. 2.44.1–4. See also n. 8 above. 154.  See Jul. Or. 1, 4D–5A, 10C–D, 14A–D, 16A–D. 155.  Jul. Or. 1, 30D–31A; cf. Or. 3, 76C. Themistius alludes to Vetranio by simply calling him an old man (Or. 3, 45B), as does Eutropius: grandaeuum (10.10.2). Further, Julian subsequently uses ὁ καλός sarcastically to describe Constantius (see chapter 3). Tougher (2012: 27) sees Julian as apparently backpedaling at 32D–33A after being too dismissive of Vetranio. In my view, the panegyrist-Caesar purposefully deployed praise and censure of Vetranio so as to undercut Constantius neatly, as he does so often elsewhere.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    53

on Constantius’s behalf.156 If so, Julian may well have known it, and taken the opportunity to offer implicit contempt of his cousin’s “persuasiveness.” In any case, that court ideology/propaganda framed Vetranio’s removal from power as a triumph of Constantius’s speech or learning is another indication that Constantius viewed paideia as an important element of his public image. To be sure, praise for Constantius’s education was not new, as Libanius did not overlook this theme. But Libanius’s account of the emperor’s learning comes straight out of the panegyrist’s handbook;157 it is prosaic and devoid of unique and personalized details, which suggests a degree of unease or even compulsion.158 In short, Julian alone commends and vividly illustrates Constantius’s paideia, and in a panegyric that seems to have been produced voluntarily. An emperor’s use of oratory to remove a rival— now that was something truly praiseworthy. Of course, all this also reflects well on Julian and might be partly self-referential, since one of Constantius’s acts as a learned emperor was to make Julian his colleague in empire, the same Julian whom Themistius had described as a philosopher before senators at Constantinople in his Oration 2 in late 355, as we have seen. Constantius had had a hand in Julian’s education,159 though this is not stated explicitly. Yet Constantius’s paideia is underscored and enhanced further by the very fact of his cousin’s panegyric, in which the Caesar displays and even refers to his own high learning near the outset by noting his education in other areas,160 that is, not in epideictic oratory, and so his inference that as a praise-giver he was lacking. But such avowed modesty was in itself characteristic of the panegyrist,161 and it shows how Julian was a master of doublespeak. It is here that he invokes philosophy and in so doing implies that he is a philosopher,162 whose North Star is arete (excellence/virtue): Many are the paths that it [logos, discourse] allows a man to follow to this goal [virtue], if he desire to imitate the nature of the beautiful. For example, he may give good advice, or use hortatory discourse, or he may rebuke error without malice, or applaud what is well done, or condemn, on occasion, what is ill done. It permits men also to use 156.  See Omissi 2018: 165–66, 168, 181–89; and Baker-Brian 2022: 239–42. The dates of Vetranio’s elevation and deposition invite suspicion—1 March (the date of the elevation of Constantius I, and that of Constantinus, Crispus, and Licinius II as Caesars) and 25 December (the date of Constans’s elevation to Caesar)—as does the place of Vetranio’s deposition, Naissus, Constantine’s birthplace. It is possible that Vetranio himself chose these dates and Naissus, but that seems rather unlikely; more likely is that the praetorian prefect of Illyricum and Constantinian adfinis Vulcacius Rufinus and/or Constantius himself chose them for symbolic purposes. 157.  Or. 59.32–39. 158.  Cf. nn. 28 and 126 above. 159.  See n. 25 above. 160.  Or. 1, 3C. 161.  Jul. Or. 1, 1D, cf. 2D. See Or. 2, 126B; Aristid. Or. 26, 2–3; Pan. Lat. 8(5).1.1–5, 6(7).1.1–4, 3(11).1.2; Lib. Or. 11, 6; Or. 12, 5–6. 162.  Jul. Or. 1, 3C–D. Cf. n. 143 above.

54      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction other types of oratory, if they please, so as to attain the best end of speech, but it enjoins on them to take thought in every word and act how they shall give account of all they utter, and to speak no word that cannot be referred to the standard of virtue and philosophy.163

This programmatic statement is similar to Themistius’s in his Oration 1 except that it allows for not only praise but also criticism of the emperor. Julian was signaling that he was both a panegyrist and a philosopher, that he would be both commending his cousin’s deeds and finding fault with them, all in accordance with virtue. Julian’s presentation of Constantius thus reveals a certain tension between the agenda of the laudator (praise-giver) and that of the laudandus (praisee); the Caesar’s speech is an innovative, composite work, one that extols the Augustus and that offers a subtle presentation of its author, and Julian’s subsequent panegyrics demonstrate that his interest in his self-presentation would grow and develop in a way commensurate with his growing confidence and developing portfolio as Caesar in Gaul.164 Julian the panegyrist and philosopher performs due diligence by promoting the full range of Constantius’s virtues, which needed to be publicized because they formed the moral foundation of an emperor’s right to rule.165 The learned Caesar first explains his Augustus’s possession of andreia (courage/manliness) and phronesis (practical wisdom).166 He then relates that, after Constantius spent time in Gaul (under his father), he took up residence in Syria, where he acquired knowledge and experience dealing with Rome’s traditional enemies, the Persians.167 Thus Julian attests Constantius’s arete.168 More specifically, his self-restraint in governing the East is alluded to and acclaimed here, though vaguely.169 Consistent with this self-restraint, Julian also notes that Constantius ruled mildly and humanely over his subjects.170 In fact, Julian notably concludes his speech by reaffirming his cousin’s mildness to all and his humanity.171 While “mildness” is a commonly espoused imperial trait or virtue that is connected with and indicative of clemency,172 the panegyrist-Caesar’s applications of it alongside philanthropia in his descriptions of 163.  Or. 1, 4A–B, trans. Wright; bracketed words and italics added for emphasis. 164.  See chapter 2. 165.  Cf., e.g., Lib. Or. 59, 8–9, 13, 121–22, 161, and 166. On the emperor’s virtues and their importance, see Charlesworth 1937 and 1943; Wallace-Hadrill 1981; and Noreña 2011a: 62–100; and chapter 4, n. 91. 166.  Or. 1, 10C, 12C, and 17A. 167.  Or. 1, 13B, D. 168.  Or. 1, 13D. 169.  Or. 1, 14A. 170.  Or. 1, 16B. 171.  Or. 1, 48C. 172.  πραότης. E.g., Julian would later apply “mild” (πρᾶος) to himself during his civil war with Constantius (chapter 3) and then as sole emperor in his public pronouncements (chapter 5).

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    55

Constantius above are key references, for they suggest that he had drawn on Themistius, who recently had made philanthropia the central virtue associated with Constantius and had made his name synonymous with it in the East.173 But in the hands of Julian, such words as “mildness” seem to take on an ironic tone when applied to his cousin, as we shall see below. Constantius is also said to possess the virtues of dikaiosune (justice) and sophrosune (prudence), along with enkrateia (self-control),174 which were additional components of arete and benefits of paideia. That Constantius consistently acted prudently and virtuously is reiterated with references to his sophrosune and megalopsuchia (magnanimity),175 the latter of which is indirectly advertised through his display of liberalitas (generosity) on gold coinage (solidi).176 Regarding the virtues of prudence and magnanimity, Julian states that the “greatest proof ” that Constantius possessed them was his agreement over the tripartite division of the empire in 337,177 which saw him concede the majority of territory to his brothers. He then uses an impersonal subject to offer the possibility that in Constantius lies “proof of greater excellence,”178 that is, greater than the power of Tyche alone.179 In terms of arguing a point, σημεῖον (sign/proof) denotes only a probable and not a certain proof.180 The rhetorician-Caesar also deploys the noun σημεῖον sparingly and skillfully, which thus invites readers to ponder what he says about the Augustus elsewhere in his speech where he does not draw one’s attention to “proof.” This is notably the case when he discusses his cousin’s military record; he could (or would) not persuade his audience that Constantius was a successful general. Further, near the end of his oration, Julian again commends Constantius for his sophrosune and 173.  Philanthropia is also a favorite trait of the second-century orator Aelius Aristides, whose orations Julian may have consulted as well. See Athanassiadi 1992: 129–31, for Julian’s apparent use of Aelius Aristides in his orations against the Cynics; cf. n. 161 above. 174.  Or. 1, 16A. 175.  Or. 1, 19B; cf. Or. 2, 109B, 114B. On megalopsuchia, see Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 35; and Athanassiadi 1992: 187–89. 176.  See n. 85 above. “Publicity” works better than “propaganda” here. Of course, coins typically served first and foremost as a means of economic exchange, but they also served as a medium of imperial messaging through their images and legends. On ideology/propaganda and Roman imperial coinage as a medium of communication, see Levick 1982; and Manders 2012: 29–37. 177.  Or. 1, 19B: μέγιστον . . . σημεῖον. 178.  Or. 1, 25B: τις . . . ἴσως . . . μείζονος ἀρετῆς . . . σημεῖον. 179.  Cf. Or. 1, 29A and 47A–C, where Julian places Tyche alongside Constantius’s practical wisdom and uses his success in maintaining the size and power of the empire as “sure proof ” (ἐναργὲς . . . τεκμήριον, 47B) of their joint value. This generalized praise is a far cry from citing specific proofs of Constantius as a successful general. Conversely, Julian had no difficulty in referring to certain proofs (τεκμήρια) of the deeds of Athenian citizens (Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 268D; cf. n. 180 below). 180.  LSJ, s.v. σημεῖον, II.3. Julian employs the lexicon of persuasion in this speech and knew Aristotle’s works well, which thus make this meaning of σημεῖον likely. Cf. n. 179 above. This lexicon of persuasion supports what Rees 2010: 112–15 has seen as the “evidentiary function” of panegyric.

56      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

phronesis, which completes and reinforces the image of an educated emperor who possesses the four cardinal virtues.181 These clustered references to Constantius’s correlative virtues illustrate Julian’s training in rhetoric, philosophy, and elite communication, as they were no doubt meant to. Indeed, by comparing Constantius’s behavior and character to that of various historical actors, such as Alcibiades, Cyrus II, and Alexander, among others, the learned Caesar simultaneously advanced his own public profile. Such references also tend to minimize or partly obscure other, less positive remarks about the Augustus, in addition to offering glimpses of Julian asserting his authorial voice in the text. As a counterpoise to Themistius’s notion of the emperor as “himself the law and above the laws,”182 a notion we have already seen above, Julian remarkably asserts that Constantius has behaved as a citizen (polites) who is bound by the laws, not as a king/ emperor (basileus) who is above them.183 This portrayal of Constantius is unusual for late antique panegyric, in which the function of the imperial office and the divine nature of the person who occupied it were stressed to reinforce the conceptual separation of the emperor from his subjects. By promoting a divergent understanding of the emperor, whereby he is placed within a system of law that he himself is also bound to, Julian appears to be advising Constantius subtly—in keeping with his programmatic statement above—about adopting a more constitutional view of the imperial office, and perhaps even criticizing him, since audiences were keen to contrast words with deeds; that is, Constantius had behaved as anything but a fellow citizen. Thus far, Julian’s veiled criticisms have centered on Constantius the politician, but continued scrutiny of his panegyric reveals negative comments on Constantius the general as well, and thus additional instances of the Caesar’s semi-independence as a panegyrist.184 These comments are not examples of what is termed “figured speech” in rhetoric,185 that is, indirect and “safe criticism” through metaphors and similes, but direct references to less than praiseworthy events during Constantius’s reign, particularly those at its outset. Praise and blame could occupy the same space within an oration, and an orator could employ flexible language regarding an emperor that allowed audiences to have diverse interpretations of what was said about him.186 For example, Julian offers a provocative comment 181.  Or. 1, 10C, 45B–C, 46D, 47A–B. 182.  Them. Or. 1, 15B. 183.  Jul. Or. 1, 45C–D. See also Jul. Or. 3, 88D, 89A; Ep. ad Athen. 271A, 272B. 184.  Cf. Tougher 2012: 27–30, who is not quite sure what to make of some of Julian’s notable comments regarding Constantius and his actions, though in the end Tougher says: “I would see him [Julian] as an ambitious and subversive risk-taker” (30). 185.  Ahl 1984: 177. 186.  See Bartsch 1994: 63–69, 93–97, 169–75, for the art of allusion, doublespeak, and the ability of praise and blame to overlap in early second-century writers such as Pliny the Younger, particularly in his panegyric on Trajan.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    57

when he puts forth that Constantius had guarded Constantinople and kept it safe from civil discord,187 for other contemporary literary sources report that, far from maintaining a peaceful and safe city, Constantius actually had been directly responsible for instigating the soldiery to assassinate members of the imperial family in and around Constantinople.188 Indeed, Julian, who had resided there at that time and who, along with his older brother Gallus, narrowly escaped death, undermines his own comment above by first remarking that Constantius could not prevent others from engaging in upheavals in some critical cases, presumably such as in summer 337.189 Therefore, regarding civic conflict, Julian’s Constantius both prevented and permitted it; praise and blame occupied the same space. Such remarks consequently paint Constantius as an inconsistent and ineffective emperor, and so undermine his legitimacy indirectly, at least in the East, where Julian sent a copy of his panegyric when he apparently sent it to Libanius at Antioch.190 On the other hand, the massacre in and near Constantinople in summer 337 may have been less well known in the West, and thus Julian’s comments about Constantius keeping the city free from civil discord even though he could not restrain others completely also can be read as Julian loyally shielding Constantius from any direct blame. So Julian displays his mastery of doublespeak once again. Moreover, Julian speaks about Constantius’s military record against the Persians post-337,191 after Constantius had assumed the rank of Augustus, alongside his brothers Constantinus and Constans, and taken over Constantine’s eastern military operations in full while affairs were chaotic and in disarray in the East.192 As Constantius’s newly minted Caesar, Julian offers his Augustan superior a revealing Tetrarchic exemplum in Diocletian’s subordinate, the Caesar Galerius, specifically Galerius’s defeat at the hands of the Persian king Narseh in 296.193 In this exemplum, Julian notes that Galerius’s reverse occurred because he had attacked Narseh “on his own behalf,” that is, in the interest of personal glory as a Caesar rather than in the interest of Diocletian as his Augustus and superior.194 In so doing, Julian implies that he himself as Constantius’s Caesar will do no such thing, that whatever he does militarily will be done with the best interests of Constantius 187.  Jul. Or. 1, 17A; Marcos 2014: 767 n. 97. 188.  See Burgess 2008 and Marcos 2014. 189.  Jul. Or. 1, 17A. Cf. Tougher 2012: 27. 190.  Lib. Ep. 30 Norman (369 Foerster); see Ross 2020a: 247 n. 25, who observes that Libanius neatly alludes to the first line of Julian’s Oration 1 in the opening line of his letter to him; and appendix C. For the circulation of speeches, see the introduction, nn. 24 and 92. 191.  Or. 1, 17C. 192.  Or. 1, 18C–22A; see Marcos 2014: 769–70. 193.  On Julian and the political memory of the Tetrarchy, see Roberto 2015, esp. 56–60. 194.  Or. 1, 18A: καθ’ αὑτόν. Galerius’s reverse and the circumstances in which it occurred in 296 were more complicated than Julian’s exemplum allows (see Leadbetter 2009: 89–91).

58      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

and the empire as a whole in mind, comments that certainly would have been welcome to the Augustus. This interpretation is reinforced by Julian’s subsequent remark that it was only when Diocletian brought to bear the resources of the empire in unison with Galerius that the fearful Persians welcomed peace,195 which is a reference to the Peace of Nisibis in 299, realized after Galerius’s remarkable victories in the prior year.196 These comments suggest that Julian was communicating prospectively to Constantius through exempla that not only would he be a dutiful subordinate but also that he would act in concert with him for the “common good,” a message that possesses both military and political resonance.197 Such an approach underscores the utility of panegyric in managing the public images and standing of both emperor and rhetorician. In the course of signaling his praise of Constantius as an emperor who had to face down serious challenges, ones from which he emerged successful, the Caesar also acknowledged, rather strikingly, that there were times when the Persians had bested the Augustus.198 When an emperor did not produce a military victory or other exploit, it was best for a panegyrist to avoid mentioning any setbacks in the field altogether and to move directly to an emperor’s achievements in peacetime.199 Thus Julian’s remarks on Constantius’s less than commendable military actions stand out. It is shortly after his acknowledgment above that Julian, in what seems to be a stock claim, finally avows explicitly what he had only hitherto been hinting at in the proem, that is, his independence as a panegyrist: For when a man deliberately sins against the truth he cannot escape the reproach of flattery, and moreover he inflicts on the object of his panegyric the appearance of not deserving the praise that he receives on other accounts. This is a mistake of which I shall beware. Indeed my speech will make it clear that in no case has fiction been preferred to the truth.200

195.  Or. 1, 18A–B. 196.  On Galerius’s victories and the Peace of Nisibis, see Blockley 1992: 5–7; and Leadbetter 2009: 86, 91–96. 197.  Cf. Eutrop. 9.24; Fest. 25.1; Jer. s. a. 301; Amm. 14.11.10; Oros. 7.25.9, for another exemplum of Galerius as a dutiful subordinate of Diocletian, one that Constantius II apparently communicated to his own Caesar, Gallus. If so, and if Julian was aware of this, then he cleverly invoked Galerius because he knew that it would have resonated with Constantius. On the above exemplum in Ammianus, see G. Kelly 2008: 284–86. Cf. Seston 1940; Leadbetter 2009: 96 and n. 152; and Waldron 2022: 105, who partly question this exemplum on the grounds of Lactantius’s silence. For a novel and nimble interpretation of Galerius running alongside Diocletian’s chariot, see Corcoran 2008: 233. 198.  Or. 1, 22D. 199.  Men. Rhet. 2.372.25–373.1 (2.1.19–20 Race). Cf. Lib. Ep. 40.7–11 Norman (19 Foerster), who explains his approach to producing panegyric, which is similar to Menander’s. 200.  Jul. Or. 1, 23A; cf. 2B and 45B, trans. Wright. See also García Ruiz 2015: 164.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    59

This declaration could have been placed in the proem, but Julian deliberately inserted it here, near the center of his speech and in the middle of presenting some of Constantius’s failings in the field against the Persians. Such placement was bold, and it supports his earlier claim about the utility of discourse (logos) in commending and criticizing an emperor’s deeds in keeping with virtue and philosophy. The learned Caesar asserted with some force that he was speaking the truth about his Augustus; he pushed the boundaries of what the genre of epideictic oratory would allow. In support of his claim, Julian discusses the battle of Singara in 344, when Constantius’s forces suffered heavy losses against the Persians, partly because of the lack of discipline of the Roman army.201 It is remarkable that Julian mentions these details, since they vitiate Constantius as a commander, and they appear to be criticism of one who, once again, could not maintain the discipline of his soldiers, just as at Constantinople in summer 337. This criticism raises further questions regarding the Caesar’s motives for writing this panegyric and what he hoped to accomplish by it. It seems that he used his avowed commitment to telling the truth about the emperor, which includes his highlighting of Constantius’s virtues, as a license or a cover to engage in indirect criticism for his own public reputation, especially if Julian did indeed send a copy of this panegyric to Libanius at Antioch and it was circulated in the East—as communication and cultural currency—as is probable. The panegyrist’s subsequent portrayal of the circumstances in which Constantius faced the usurpations of Magnentius and Vetranio again reveals a confluence of praise and blame. Led by Shapur II, the Persians took advantage of Constantius’s internal challenges by preparing to invade the Eastern provinces during the emperor’s absence,202 a narrative in which Julian relates the third siege of Nisibis (350).203 Much space and detail are expended here on the severity of the siege, on the ingenuity and persistence of besieger and besieged alike, and how this siege compares with other notable sieges. After four months, according to the Caesar, the people of Nisibis convinced the Persian king to withdraw.204 But Constantius had not been directly involved; he had played some role in the preparations,205 from a distance, it seems. Indeed, it is likely that the emperor had been absent, for Julian implies that he was elsewhere preparing to confront Magnentius,206 a situation the Caesar states 201.  Or. 1, 23B–26A; see Ross 2018b: 196–99. See also Eutrop. 10.10.1; Fest. 27.3; and Amm. 18.5.7. On this battle, see Mosig-Walburg 1999. For the location, see map 1. 202.  Jul. Or. 1, 26B–30B. 203.  Or. 1, 27B–30A. On this siege, see Lightfoot 1988, esp. 112–25. See also map 1. 204.  Or. 1, 28D. 205.  Or. 1, 27B. 206.  Or. 1, 28D–29A; cf. 26B. See also Chron. Pasch. s. a. 350 (pp. 536–39), where Constantius is explicitly said to have been elsewhere preparing to confront Magnentius. He is also explicitly said to have been absent, and his involvement at Nisibis is presented as metaphysical in the form of his spirit on its walls.

60      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

was disordered.207 In this highly dramatized episode it is telling that the protagonist is not the emperor but the beleaguered. To be sure, Julian speaks of Constantius’s trophies and victories in Asia,208 which would appear to give him the credit for the victory at Nisibis in 350. But this is by no means made explicit. To narrate this Roman success while relegating the emperor to a cameo at best in the performance can be seen as ruthlessly deflating—Constantius had had nothing to do with it. As for Constantius’s movements against Magnentius, who had killed his brother Constans in January 350, Julian presents these movements unambiguously as personal vengeance and success, and after describing Constantius as always having honored his brothers and co-emperors.209 However, Julian’s claims about Constantius’s fraternal comity do not ring true, and he hints at some hostility between the three brothers—Constantinus, Constantius, and Constans—though he minimizes it.210 Here Julian deploys another historical exemplum in the sons of Darius II, who had fought with one another over the right to occupy the Persian throne, to draw a contrast with how well Constantius and his brothers behaved.211 But this is a false contrast, for Constantinus and Constans did indeed quarrel over their inheritance, with the result that the one died in battle against the forces of the other near Aquileia in 340;212 and Constans and Constantius in turn would nearly come to blows over religious policy in the following decade.213 These quarrels, in addition to the remarks on civic conflict above, would have formed part of the shared knowledge between panegyrist and members of his audience that conveyed censure; the discrepancy between words and deeds that Julian was keen to communicate was the criticism. In short, the exemplum of Darius’s sons was actually censure masquerading as praise. In the hands of Julian, the act of comparing the subject of a panegyric to a historical example so as to highlight him as a superior example or model (sunkrisis) could be inverted to show that subject as a failure.214 The panegyrist-Caesar’s treatment of Constantius’s civil war with Magnentius, of the latter’s supposedly flawed character and government,215 and of his ultimate 207.  Or. 1, 28D. 208.  Or. 1, 28D–29A. 209.  Or. 1, 17B. 210.  Jul. Or. 1, 16D–17A, 18C, 33B–C; cf. Them. Or. 2, 38C–D. Julian reasserts his claim of comity near the end (Or. 1.41B–D). 211.  Jul. Or. 1, 33B; cf. Xen. Anab. The sons of Darius II were of course Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger. 212.  See Bleckmann 2003 and Lewis 2020. See also map 1. 213.  See Barnes 1993: 63–70, for their struggle over how to treat Athanasius. 214.  On the typical application of sunkrisis in epideictic discourse, see Webb 2003: 130, 134–35. 215.  Cf. Jul. Caes. 315D–316A; and Lib. Or. 18, 33, who could admit after Constantius’s death that Magnentius’s administration of the Western empire had some merit; and Zos. 2.54.2. Julian’s and Libanius’ admissions may partly reflect Magnentius’s tolerance of and even support for traditional cult (see Rubin 1998).

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    61

defeat in battle reflects a similar objective.216 Julian tells us about Magnentius’s cruelty, his poor treatment of Italians, and his frivolous living at Aquileia and in Gaul, against which Constantius is supposed to be contrasted favorably. If it is right to see this panegyric as having been produced for the occasion of Constantius’s aduentus at Rome in 357,217 and also closely linked with Julian’s elevation in late 355, as I suggest, then Julian’s portrayal of Magnentius would have been consistent with one of the key reasons behind Constantius’s visit to and triumph in the Eternal City: to create a new Constantinian consensus in Rome and Italy.218 It also may have been meant to shame those who had sided with the usurper in Rome and who were allowed to live after his death only because of Constantius’s mildness or clemency. Thus far, Julian’s narrative appears complimentary to Constantius, who is said to have defeated both a tyrant and a barbarian in Magnentius. But then the Caesar commends his cousin’s skills in assembling a formidable fleet against Magnentius by comparing it with what happened in the Greco-Persian War.219 This appears highly favorable until one considers that Constantius has been compared with the wrong historical actor: not with the Athenian general and victor, Themistocles, who defended Greek freedom at Salamis with a navy, but with the loser and Persian king, Xerxes, who had sought to extend his tyranny to Greece.220 Could Magnentius have been comparable to Themistocles? Even so, Constantius, we are told, displayed clemency and generosity toward Magnentius’s supporters.221 And among statements on Constantius’s philanthropia and his generosity to cities are telling comments about envy,222 telling because Julian speaks delicately of his cousin’s failed relationship with his prior colleague, Gallus. Julian’s tone here is one of reassurance, implying as it does that Constantius need not worry about his current colleague in what appears to be another indirect message to the Augustus, not unlike the Tetrarchic exemplum above. If so, seeing the Caesar’s oration as a declaration of loyalty becomes more evident, especially since Constantius was Julian’s Augustan superior, brother-in-law, and the head of the dynasty. This dovetails well with his references to Constantius’s many unnamed philoi (officials), whom the Caesar compliments along with Constantius’s

216.  Jul. Or. 1, 33D–40C, 41D–42D, 47D–48C. 217.  Tantillo 1997: 36–40. 218.  Ross 2018b: 200 reached a similar conclusion. See also chapter 2, esp. n. 131. 219.  Or. 1, 42A–D. 220.  Cf. Jul. Or. 1, 28B–D; and Lib. Or. 59, 51, where Xerxes is presented as a negative exemplum generally, though Libanius does praise Xerxes for his mercy in one particular instance (Or. 12, 85; Or. 15, 40); and Jul. Or. 3, 63B, where Shapur II is likened to Xerxes. 221.  Jul. Or. 1, 38B, 48A–B. Cf. Amm. 14.5, for Constantius’s punishment of some of Magnentius’s supporters; CTh 9.38.2; Blockley 1975: 185–86. 222.  Jul. Or. 1, 44C–D.

62      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

treatment of them;223 Constantius could be expected to repay loyalty with loyalty.224 Nonetheless, Julian’s allusion to his half brother Gallus is striking.225 Given that Gallus had been disgraced and executed, and that he subsequently suffered memory sanctions (damnatio memoriae) only recently,226 this was a particularly audacious allusion for Julian to make when silence would have been more prudent. What did Julian hope to achieve by alluding to Gallus, in addition to the other embarrassing events discussed above? Showcasing his parrhesia (freedom of speech) as a philosopher and his independence as a panegyrist is a partial answer.227 His raising of Gallus also might have been meant to help to revive public conversations on the former Caesar and his management of Antioch and the East,228 and on the rightness of Constantius’s decision to execute him, especially if this panegyric was circulated there. If so, such conversations would have been damaging to Constantius’s public standing, at least partly. C O N C LU SIO N

To enhance an emperor’s public image was to enhance his power, since it improved his ability to negotiate his relationships with the educated elite and to maximize the value he derived from these relationships. To challenge or undermine that image would have had the opposite effect. At the start of the second century, Pliny in his Panegyricus had been content to focus on Trajan’s military record, civility, and exemplarity in the imperial office. But by the fourth century, paideia and power were more closely intertwined than ever, particularly in the Greek East. More specifically, the emperor’s image as a learned man received greater attention,229 presumably because it needed to. Themistius first delivered an edifying panegyric before Constantius ca. late 350, after which the emperor adlected him to the Senate of Constantinople on 1 September 355, apparently as a reward for this speech, as the Demegoria Constantii suggests. This date was the anniversary of Pliny’s speech above, and it seems likely that it was chosen with the express pur223.  Jul. Or. 1, 17B, 46B–C; cf. Them. Or. 1, 10C. 224.  See also Swift and Oliver 1962, AÉ 1967, 478. This imperial letter authorized the erecting of gilded statues of Philippus, the emperor’s parentem amicumque, which was no small honor. 225.  Jul. Or. 1, 44D–45B; see Pagliara 2015: 91. 226.  See Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 271A. On damnatio memoriae as a modern phrase that describes ancient processes, see H. I. Flower 2006 and Omissi 2016. 227.  See Jul. Or. 1, 3C–4B. On the parrhesia of the philosopher, see Brown 1992: 61–70. 228.  On Gallus’s management of Antioch and the East and its context, see Blockley 1972a: 433–45, 461–68; and Baker-Brian 2022: 284–98. 229.  This attention is manifest in Libanius’s, Themistius’s, and Julian’s imperial speeches on Constantius and in Themistius’s subsequent speeches on Valens and Theodosius, in addition to Ausonius’s Gratiarum actio to Gratian, his former student.

Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction    63

pose of drawing favorable comparisons: Themistius with Pliny, and Constantius with Trajan. As for Julian, he produced multivalent praise for the emperor who had recalled him from his studies at Athens to promote him to the rank of Caesar at Milan on 6 November 355.230 Both promotions above appear connected, at least partly, with the paideia of the honorees, and Themistius’s and Julian’s subsequent panegyrics can be classified as two kinds of speeches of thanks. In addition to a copy of his panegyric presumably having been sent to Constantius’s court at Milan or Rome by early 357, Julian apparently sent a copy of his first imperial speech to Libanius at Antioch, and so it seems right to conclude that the panegyrist-Caesar intended it to be disseminated in the East among the educated elite. Themistius had presented his first two panegyrics on Constantius as implicit praise of and appeals to his paideia. But Julian in his Oration 1 offered a remarkable example of Constantius’s paideia in action in his peaceful removal of the “usurper” Vetranio by means of speech or learning, though not without a negative insinuation, in addition to presenting Constantius’s military achievements, which were a traditional part of panegyric. This framing of Vetranio’s deposition as due to Constantius’s learning, which is suggestive of court ideology, reflects Constantius’s interest in public perceptions of his paideia. And these uses of paideia were mutually beneficial: they advertised the learnedness of the praise-givers as much as they boosted the image of the education and refinement of the emperor whom they lauded. Certainly other panegyrists, such as Libanius, especially in his Oration 59, shared a desire to advertise their learning, yet Julian’s and Themistius’s imperial speeches reveal that paideia played a prominent role for both emperor and rhetorician in conveying and enhancing an emperor’s image as a member of the educated elite of which the panegyrist was also a member.231 This agenda would further explain the commonalities in substance and configuration related to imperial learning among panegyrics from the fourth century.232 Nevertheless, different audiences would have found different messages in Julian’s first speech.233 Once read, his panegyric would have been seen largely as a declaration of loyalty to Constantius, as it was no doubt intended. But while signaling praise Julian was also veiling criticism that would not have been lost on alert listeners/readers. Julian’s Constantius thus was a learned, philosophical emperor who had a mixed if not relatively poor record of military and political achievement, both at home and abroad. Of course, given that Julian’s Oration 1 seems to 230.  Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 275A–B. For Julian’s movements from Macellum to Milan (348–355), see Henck 1999/2000. 231.  Cf. Plin. Pan. 2.4: unum ille se ex nobis (Trajan). 232.  See nn. 12 and 13 above. 233.  Tougher 2012: 29 raises the possibility.

64      Panegyric, Paideia, and (De)construction

have been circulated shortly after its composition, it is possible that criticisms of Constantius were embedded later in the published version that we have; however, these criticisms are so neatly made that Julian may well have inserted them into his original draft as proofs of his parrhesia as a philosopher,234 and in contrast to Themistius’s supposed own freedom of speech. The rhetorician-Caesar invited ironic and intratextual readings of his speech; he used his paideia to create a dichotomy of the emperor as effective and ineffective. And by presenting Constantius as a citizen (polites) in opposition to Themistius’s “extralegal emperor,” Julian invited critical and intertextual readings as well. As has been shown here, Julian’s first panegyric is a tale of two speeches, of a detailed, sophisticated, and original oration that advertises his loyalty and deference to Constantius to a great extent while also occasionally deconstructing and delicately casting some serious doubts on the very worth of the man whom he is praising and declaring his loyalty to. Conversely, Themistius had avoided using specific historical episodes and details, such as those provided by Julian, a choice that frames his panegyrics as general speeches of praise and philosophical tutorials for an emperor whom Themistius wished to honor and to influence in his manner of rule, while also seeking personal favor and perhaps anticipating his place as a key philosopher and adviser for the “philosopher-king/emperor” Constantius. Thus Julian and Themistius variously conveyed their learnedness and semi-independence. As sole Augustus and primary ruler of the Roman Empire, Constantius stimulated the production of three remarkable Greek panegyrics on him from ca. 350 to 356,235 dynamic ones that would have advanced his image as an emperor of paideia; but how his reign would be presented and how his image would be shaped within these speeches gave Themistius and Julian great license as his panegyrists, license that, as we have seen, they each used for various ends. With respect to image and power, “forcefulness in words” enhanced both its distributor and recipient. And Themistius’s and Julian’s presentations of Constantius further support the view that persuasion was an integral part of epideictic discourse.

234.  See n. 227 above. 235.  See Or. 1, 2D–3B, where Julian recounts how others had praised Constantius in verse and prose. The Caesar is likely thinking of the orations of Himerius, Bemarchius, Libanius, and others, though of these only Libanius’s is extant.

2

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation Julian, Themistius, and Constantius in the West, 357–359 There are times when the statesman might venture on self-glorification, as it is called, not for any personal glory or pleasure, but when the occasion and the matter in hand demand that the truth be told about himself, as it might about another—especially when by permitting himself to mention his good accomplishments and character he is enabled to achieve some similar good. For such praise as this yields a handsome return, as a greater harvest of yet nobler praise springs up from it as from a seed. Indeed it is not as a reward or compensation for his merit that the statesman demands recognition and values it when accorded to his acts: he does so rather because the enjoyment of confidence and good repute affords means for further and yet nobler actions. plut. mor. 539e–f, trans. de lacy and einarson 1

In the later Roman imperial system of two-man rule (dyarchy), the maintenance of positive relations between a Caesar and his Augustus required some dexterity. By virtue of his lower rank, a Caesar was expected to defer to and even obey his senior colleague. But a Caesar also possessed personal ambitions, such as a desire for military glory, including its recognition, and, in due time, promotion to higher rank. How he balanced deference and ambition could define his tenure as a political and military subordinate and even determine his future prospects. When he prospectively employed the Caesar Galerius’s beneficial relationship with his Augustan superior Diocletian as an exemplum (memorable precedent) in his first panegyric,2 Julian implicitly acknowledged his need to balance personal 1.  For Julian’s possible familiarity with Plutarch’s De se ipsum citra inuidiam laudando, see Niccolai 2017: 1058–84, esp. 1065. 2.  Jul. Or. 1, 18A–B (see chapter 1). On this relationship, see Leadbetter 2009: 81–155.

65

66      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

ambition and deference to Constantius. In so doing, he also recognized the role that panegyric could play in preserving positive imperial relationships such as theirs, how it could perform a diplomatic function. The Augustus and his closest advisers were sensitive judges of his relationship with his Caesar, and speeches of praise that articulated that relationship before elite subjects helped both to publicize and to shape their assessment. While Themistius, Constantius, and Julian paid attention to elite audiences in the East, they nonetheless did not overlook members of the Western elite. This chapter discusses and explains Julian’s and Themistius’s emphasis on Constantius as an alert and just administrator, and their appeals to him on these grounds in the form of three panegyrics (Jul. Orr. 2 and 3; Them. Or. 3). All three of these orations were produced in the West during a two-year period (357–359) and were conceived of, in part, as diplomatic texts; thus these three speeches can tell us about these rhetoricians and the dynamic relations between them, Constantius, and his new Western subjects from late 353 on. As I will argue, Julian and Themistius designed their panegyrics to finesse different relationships with Constantius, including their own, and to promote themselves. This shift from the enhancement of Constantius’s paideia (shared education and culture) to matters of diplomacy with respect to the emperor is evident in Themistius’s Oration 3, a formal ambassadorial speech (presbeutikos logos) that indicates a new phase in the relationship between Themistius and Constantius, and, as we shall see, one that also speaks to a (d)evolving relationship between Julian and Constantius, which is discernible in the Caesar’s two subsequent panegyrics as well. Though not formal diplomatic speeches, Julian’s Orations 2 and 3 possess diplomatic resonance and so suggest underlying diplomatic purposes. Scholars have often viewed Julian’s Orations 1 and 2 as complementary texts, because the second panegyric seems to have been written shortly after the first (perhaps just a few months afterward) and because one praises the emperor’s deeds while the other praises the empress’s virtues in what appears to be a double speech of praise (euphemia).3 But it would be better to decouple these texts, or at least not to couple them too closely. The Caesar’s first two panegyrics may have been written as much as a year (or more) apart, and, in any case, they were apparently produced under different circumstances; we do not know that they were delivered to Constantius’s court together.4 Moreover, veiled criticisms of Constantius appear again in Ora-

3.  Bidez 1932: 71; Aujoulat 1983a: 78; Tougher 1998a: 109; Di Mattia 2003: 329; García Ruiz 2015 (for a double euphemia). 4.  Based on what we can glean from his Oration 2, it appears that Julian began composing his Panegyric on Eusebia in late 356, after he had already begun campaigning in Gaul; see below and n. 7, esp. Angiolani 2008: 20–22.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    67

tions 2 and 3. These speeches are worth studying in tandem as they underscore Julian’s developing interest in his self-presentation since his Oration 1. My intention here, in part, is to advance the view that the panegyric on Eusebia displays interest in diplomacy, censure, and self-presentation.5 As we have discussed above, panegyric could serve multiple purposes beyond promoting an emperor’s reputation for specific public occasions: it could be used for broad diplomatic purposes, to secure favor for the panegyrist and those in his community whose interests he could seek to advance along with his own, and it could provide the rhetorician with an opportunity for self-presentation and promotion within the speech itself, implicitly or explicitly, that could be disseminated together with the presentation of the speech’s subject. In fact, Julian’s emphasis on his self-image in Oration 2 runs the risk of overshadowing his speech’s subject, Eusebia.6 Such emphasis was lacking, or rather understated, in Oration 1, as we have seen. And yet Julian’s notable insertions of himself into Orations 2 and 3, as we shall see, indicate his increasingly active hand in his own image management separate from Constantius’s influence, and thus his growing confidence and his concern with how the empire’s elite subjects should perceive him as Caesar in the West. The orations of 357–359 thus show Constantius and Themistius forming a closer social and political relationship, while also revealing serious tensions between the Caesar and his Augustus. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section explores Julian’s oration on the empress Eusebia (Or. 2), the second wife of Constantius and the one whom contemporary literary sources credit to a great degree with supporting Constantius in his decision to elevate Julian to the Caesarship. It seems that Eusebia was Julian’s single most important patron after the Augustus, a status that is illustrated by the young Caesar’s decision to dedicate a separate imperial speech on her and a status that he wished to maintain. The second section examines Themistius’s Oration 3 to Constantius, which the rhetorician and recently adlected senator delivered before the emperor at Rome on the occasion of certain imperial anniversaries that Constantius celebrated there in April/May 357. This panegyric is framed formally in the diplomatic mode, and it reveals much of Constantius’s interactions and relations with the Senate of Rome and the Western elite. Finally, the third section examines Julian’s second panegyric on Constantius (Or. 3), which he apparently prepared shortly after his victory at Argentoratum (Strasbourg) in summer 357 but before his open break with Constantius that led to civil war in 361. This oration has some significance for understanding Julian as Caesar, for it contains an extensive section on the good king and on proper kingship that accentuates other areas of the speech that reflect upon him.

5.  See Tougher 1998a: 122–23. 6.  Tougher 1998a: 121, 123.

68      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation E U SE B IA A N D C O N S TA N T I U S : B I NA RY P R A I SE , C OM M U N IC AT IO N , A N D PAT R O NAG E

Julian’s second oration, the Panegyric on Eusebia, has consistently been dated to 356/7,7 and for good reasons. In it the Caesar refers to his campaign in Gaul and to the small library of books that accompanied him.8 These references suggest that Julian had only recently begun to campaign there and that campaigning itself was still a new experience for him. Furthermore, at the end of his panegyric, he tells us that Eusebia had recently been at Rome, and at the same time Constantius had been campaigning near the borders of Gaul in Raetia, that is, during the pincers movement that Constantius coordinated with him in 356.9 If so, Julian would have begun writing after this campaign had ended that year, thus late 356. In the course of recording these details, Julian also notes that Eusebia, who had traveled to Rome without Constantius, received senators and dispensed largess to those assembled there, probably in preparation for Constantius’s aduentus (arrival ceremony) in late April 357.10 This image of Eusebia is a vital one within the text, for Julian consistently depicts her as a patron and a distributor of imperial favor. It has been asserted that Julian sent his imperial speech to Constantius’s court at Milan in 356/7, specifically with his head chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi) Eutherius, in order to counter the accusations of the disgraced and disgruntled Marcellus, who had been a top general (magister equitum) in Gaul during the first year of Julian’s tenure there;11 but this is nowhere attested or even hinted at, and so must remain only an attractive suggestion. Nevertheless, the contents of Julian’s speech do convey diplomatic concerns, such as references to Eusebia and Constantius as his benefactors, including but not limited to his promotion in late 355. The Caesar’s skillful praise of the empress as one of his promoters would have served a diplomatic function. Indeed, when he notes Constantius’s clemency and 7.  Bidez 1932: 71–72; Bowersock 1978: 34; Athanassiadi 1992: 61; Tantillo 1997: 36–40; Tougher 1998a: 109 n. 19; Vatsend 2000: 11–13; Angiolani 2008: 16–22; García Ruiz 2015: 156. See also n. 9 below. Cf. Ugenti 2016: 14–15. 8.  Or. 2, 124A–D. 9.  Or. 2, 129B–C. See also Marcos 2015: 689. Julian ends his second oration on Constantius with a vague reference to his turning to a remaining task (Or. 3, 101D), that is, a current event, probably campaigning. He displays a similar habit of composition by ending his panegyric on Eusebia with a remark about Constantius’s crossing of the Rhine via a pontoon bridge, which may reflect a recent event at the time of writing and one that fits well with Constantius’s campaign of 356, again mentioned at Or. 3, 74B. See also appendix C. 10.  Or. 2, 129C. On the ceremony of aduentus, see MacCormack 1972 and 1990: 17–89, esp. 40–43. See also nn. 110 and 131 below. 11.  PLRE 1.314–15, Eutherius 1, 1.550–51, Marcellus 3. See Bidez 1965: 144–46, 1932: 3–4; and Garcίa Ruiz 2013a: 88 and n. 24, who suggest that Julian’s second oration is specifically connected with his breach with Marcellus and his attempt to gain Constantius’s support against the general. Cf. Rosen 2006: 143.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    69

Eusebia’s intercession on behalf of individuals under prosecution,12 Julian may very well be alluding to himself as a potential beneficiary in proceedings at court.13 But the panegyrist-Caesar need not be offering praise in response to a particular problem. Rather, he could have prospectively and prudently commended his patrons so as to maintain good relations with them and in the event of conflict with high imperial officials, such as Marcellus and, as we shall see below, Constantius’s praetorian prefect of Gaul, Florentius, with whom Julian would indeed come into conflict in 357/8.14 It has been argued that Julian’s expressions of gratitude in his Panegyric on Eusebia were likely not part of his original speech, since they clash with his acidic portrayal of Constantius in the Epistle to the Athenians.15 But this approach is highly problematic. As we shall see in chapter 3, Julian’s hostile depiction of Constantius in the Epistle was made in the context of civil war in 361, after Julian as Augustus had seized control of much of Illyricum and was on the verge of annexing Macedonia and Greece as well. In 356/7, all was still well between the imperial cousins, at least publicly; both men strongly supported one another at this time, and it would have been in the Caesar’s best interests to continue to portray his superior in glowing terms. Moreover, to assert exactly what Julian did and did not include in an “original” draft that we do not possess is speculative and perilous.16 The oration that we possess may be a “polished” version, but its contents are consistent with Julian’s presentation of Constantius in his first oration. In short, Julian’s Panegyric on Eusebia should be taken on its own terms and read for what it is in the context of 356/7, not 361. As with his first panegyric on Constantius, Julian’s Panegyric on Eusebia (Or. 2) is described as an “encomium” in the manuscript headings and within the text of the speech itself.17 More specifically, like Themistius’s second oration (Or. 2), which thanked the emperor for his adlection to the Senate, Julian’s own Oration 2 is another kind of gratiarum actio or charisterios logos (speech of thanks/gratitude) for the friendship that Eusebia had extended to him at Milan in 354/5, when his position within the dynasty was being reconsidered, and for the part that she 12.  Jul. Or. 2, 116D–119A. 13.  Garcίa Ruiz 2013a: 89–90. 14.  PLRE 1.365, Flavius Florentius 10; Vogler 1979: 100–107. See also n. 224 below. 15.  Garcίa Ruiz 2013a: 89–90 and n. 29. 16.  García Ruiz 2013a: 89–95 does manage to demonstrate, however, that Julian’s oration on Eusebia likely influenced Ammianus’s portrayal of Eutherius’s audience with Constantius at Milan; but this is a very different matter from what Julian may have said “originally” in his speech on the empress, since Ammianus seems to have had the same version that we have. Cf. García Ruiz 2015: 172, where she simply questions what “original” versions of Julian’s first two orations may have contained. 17.  Or. 2, 104B: τῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐγκωμίων. For studies on this oration, see Aujoulat 1983a, Tougher 1998a, Di Mattia 2003, James 2012, and Washington 2020.

70      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

played in his subsequent promotion to Caesar in late 355.18 This is suggested at the very outset of the oration, where Julian focuses on the theme that one should be grateful to benefactors and avoid the charge or even the appearance of acharistia (ingratitude).19 As we shall see below, this panegyric also has much in common with an ambassadorial speech as prescribed by Menander Rhetor: the praise-giver should stress the emperor’s clemency and his benefactions.20 In an empire of honor, favors dispensed and received between members of the elite, especially between the emperor and his top aristocrats, as noted in chapter 1, helped to create binding and enduring relationships.21 It is just such a relationship, I would argue, that Julian was primarily concerned with in 356/7, and so he produced a panegyric meant for Eusebia, Constantius, those around them at court, and other holders of elite status, perhaps in both the West and the East. This concern and target audience, in my view, make better sense than that Julian intended his oration on Eusebia for Constantius’s administrators in Gaul, or even for a coterie of men around the newly minted Caesar.22 What would Julian have hoped to gain from either audience? Constantius’s men in Gaul may have been an initial audience, but as a Caesar interested in maintaining an open line of public communication and a positive relationship with his Augustan superior, without which his success as a subordinate would not be possible, Julian would have wanted his two benefactors to listen to (or read) and appreciate his speech without any intermediaries or filters. However, a Western and perhaps more regional, Gallic audience coheres well with the substance and tone of Julian’s second panegyric on Constantius (Or. 3; see below). Moreover, if we are right to see Eusebia as an agent or intermediary employed by Constantius, who used her in an effort to obtain Julian’s acceptance of his promotion to Caesar,23 then Julian would have known this as well. Thus, by writing a panegyric on Eusebia, Julian likely saw that he, too, could use the empress for his own ends, but in reverse: to help him obtain further favor and support from Constantius. Scholars have noted the uniqueness of the fact that Julian produced an oration on the empress in which his very promotion to Caesar is ascribed to the influence of a woman, albeit an important one.24 And yet praise for elite women was not uncommon in the ancient Mediterranean. Honorary decrees for such women had

18.  See Aujoulat 1983b: 425–34; and Tougher 1998b. On Ammianus’s contradictory portrayals of Eusebia, see Tougher 2000 and García Ruiz 2008b. 19.  Or. 2, 102A–C; cf. 117A. 20.  Men. Rhet. 2.423.6–424.2. 21.  Lendon 1997: 154–60. On patronage, see Garnsey 2010. See also the introduction, n. 87. 22.  See Tougher 1998a: 109–10, who briefly considers these possible scenarios. 23.  See Tougher 1998b. 24.  Aujoulat 1983a: 78–79; and Tougher 1998a: 115.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    71

been common in the Greek world from the Hellenistic to the Roman period.25 The Roman elite had also been long accustomed to delivering funerary speeches or eulogies (laudationes funebres) on remarkable women and matrons within their families, such as the speeches that Julius Caesar delivered on his aunt Julia and his wife, Cornelia, and the oration that Hadrian as emperor delivered on his motherin-law, Matidia.26 Further, orations on and to living women were not unheard-of in late antiquity.27 But Julian’s Panegyric on Eusebia is the only extant imperial oration written by a Caesar for an empress, and one who was the wife of his Augustan superior. The very uniqueness of Julian’s speech, therefore, invites us to pay close attention to its contents and to the tone of the messages it delivers. Unlike his first oration on Constantius, Julian inserts himself emphatically, implicitly, and consistently into his imperial speech on Eusebia. The rhetoricianCaesar offers his audience autobiographical details that shed some light on his motives for producing a panegyric on the empress. There is also a hint of Julian’s growing confidence in his comment “For I already possess, because God grants and so does the emperor, and, I think, also because the empress was an eager promoter for me, all those benefits for which a flatterer would leave nothing unsaid.”28 He states that he is grateful for all the imperial benefits (apanta ta agatha) that he has received, and his use of “all” (apanta) implies that he is not in need of further benefits from Constantius and Eusebia. Indeed, Julian proposes this as the basis for how his audience should take his praise—not as flattery, but as truth. He has nothing left to gain. But this was certainly not true, and we should not accept his statement here on its face.29 By subsequently pointing to his recent history of receiving benefits from the emperor and empress, including gold, silver, and better yet, books,30 the Caesar also seems to hint at his willingness to receive additional benefits from them, a stance that helps to give his oration a diplomatic quality. Near the end of his panegyric, Julian reasserts his claim to being a truth-teller while once again exhibiting avowed modesty:

25.  Pomeroy 1976: 125–26. 26.  Suet. Caes. 6.1; Plut. Caes. 5.2–5; Smallwood 1966: 56, no. 114. See also Cic. Fin. 2.116; and Osgood 2014, for the “Laudatio Turiae.” For a eulogistic inscription to Fabia Aconia Paulina, wife of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, see CIL 6.1779 = ILS 1259. On the laudatio funebris, see MacCormack 1975: 146–48; and H. I. Flower 1999: 128–58. 27.  Libanius mentions his panegyric on the daughter of Strategius Musonianus, one presumably written while she was still alive (Lib. Ep. 25.2 Norman [580 Foerster]). See also James 2012: 48, for some examples of speeches to imperial women after Julian’s. However, none of the orators were emperors. It would be worth knowing whether Julian had used a particular model for his oration. For a comparison of Julian’s oration on Eusebia with Claudian’s Laus Serenae, see Washington 2020. 28.  Jul. Or. 2, 117A, trans. Wright, which I have modified. See also Filippo 2016: 145. 29.  Tougher 1998a: 117–18. 30.  Or. 2, 123D–126A.

72      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation Indeed it may be that you have listened without enjoyment to what has been said so far, seeing that the speaker is a layman and entirely ignorant of rhetoric, and knows neither how to invent nor how to use the writer’s craft, but speaks the truth as it occurs to him.31

Such modesty about his learning in writing and rhetoric, though somewhat typical of panegyric,32 conversely would have had the effect of further highlighting Julian’s paideia. Given the preceding material on his interactions with Constantius and Eusebia, this modesty also constitutes an instance of Julian’s conscious selfpresentation as an honest broker in his dealings with the imperial couple. In this regard, more notable is his recourse to Homer, specifically to Odysseus’s interactions with Alcinous, the king of the Phaeacians, and his wife, Arete.33 Julian alludes to Eusebia as Arete and to himself as Odysseus, for he offers a particularly revealing passage that refers to what Odysseus can expect from properly praising Arete: “Now if, when you entreat her [Arete], the goddess [Athena] says to him [Odysseus], you find her well disposed, Then is there hope that you will see your friends and come to your high-roofed house .”34 Parallels between Odysseus and Julian, and Eusebia and Arete, have already been noted,35 but we can go further. Homer’s passage here seems meant to communicate to Eusebia (and Constantius) that Julian desires, whether truly or not, to return to Greece or Ionia, presumably to continue his philosophical studies there, and that he hopes that one day, like Odysseus, he will return home.36 While such a message might seem impractical, given that once imperial power was accepted it could not easily be laid aside, Julian may well have considered the prospect of returning to a more private station at some point; if Eusebia produced a male heir for Constantius, this would have impacted Julian’s position as Caesar and heir apparent.37 In fact, Julian states that when he was summoned to Milan he thought that he would be returning home soon, and so left most of his library behind,38 presumably in Asia Minor. The value of such self-presentation to him should not be underestimated and conveys several messages at once: it projects the view that his promotion to Caesar was unsought; that he hopes or is prepared to resume his prior life as a private citizen (priuatus) in some form; that he intends to act appropriately toward Eusebia and Constantius, and so remain loyal and faithful to them; and 31.  Or. 2, 126B; cf. Or. 3, 79C–D, trans. Wright. 32.  See chapter 1, n. 161. 33.  Or. 2, 104C–105D. 34.  Or. 2, 105D; cf. Hom. Od. 7.75–77, trans. Wright, with brackets added. Cf. Vatsend 2000: 93, 108–10, who sees Constantius as Odysseus. That seems to be the case elsewhere, but not in this passage. 35.  Tougher 1998a: 112. 36.  Cf. Drinkwater 1983: 368–69; Matthews 2007: 85. 37.  On Eusebia’s political concerns, see Aujoulat 1983b: 432–38; and Tougher 1998a: 122. 38.  Or. 2, 124A.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    73

that he will take on his new toils like Odysseus and do what Constantius deems necessary so that he, Julian, can receive his reward. Many if not most of these messages would have drawn a marked contrast with his half brother Gallus, who had been executed in late 354 because he had removed himself from Constantius’s control and appeared on the verge of rebelling and so as disloyal.39 Moreover, such a view is consistent with what Julian had affirmed previously, that his elevation to Caesar had been forced upon him and that he had accepted only reluctantly.40 Here we seem to have an instance of refusal of empire (recusatio imperii),41 which would suggest that Julian actually meant the opposite, that he considered himself qualified as a holder of imperial power. This has some implications for how we might understand his subsequent comments on dynastic legitimacy,42 but what matters here is that the remarks above further support treading carefully when attempting to decipher Julian’s descriptions. In this light, there would seem to be implicit censure of Constantius when Julian observes that power, when used incorrectly, can harm households and cities and produces countless disasters,43 and again later, near the end of his oration, when he asks his audience if there can be any greater proof of praiseworthy virtue than not to have killed any citizen, seized his money, or placed him in an unjust exile.44 These generic, rhetorical charges may or may not be veiled criticisms of Constantius, and that is the point. Different audiences could discern different messages in this and other panegyrics,45 messages that made these speeches highly flexible and valuable as methods of political communication. Praise of an emperor could be praise of what he possessed and displayed, or it could be implied contempt for what he lacked.46 This was all part of the art of allusion and of doublespeak, of which Julian was clearly a master. Praise could also serve to give a positive face to some negative personal traits, such as when an emperor’s generosity was praised in place of his extravagance.47 That Julian could have criticized Constantius in his oration on Eusebia, even indirectly, has been questioned;48 but however easy it was to punish or to dispose of a panegyrist who had crossed the 39.  See Blockley 1972a: 433–45, 461–68. For the context of Gallus’s actions, see Baker-Brian 2022: 284–98. 40.  Or. 2, 121C. 41.  On recusatio imperii, see Béranger 1948; Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 36–44, esp. 36–37; Huttner 2004; and Birley 2011. 42.  See nn. 164 and 165 below. 43.  Or. 2, 121D–122A. 44.  Or. 2, 129A; Tougher 1998a: 119–20; James 2012: 52–53; García Ruiz 2015: 168–69. 45.  Tougher 2012: 29 considers this as one possibility. 46.  See Bartsch 2012: 156–58, for this dichotomy in Pliny’s Panegyricus. 47.  See Bartsch 2012: 172–77. 48.  See James 2012: 53–54.

74      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

line with respect to the emperor, it was a far more difficult and delicate matter to do so with a panegyrist who was also a Caesar. Julian undoubtedly knew this himself and took advantage of the situation, but only to a point. Philosophy, Penelope, and (Self-)Promotion Much like his recusatio imperii (noted above), Julian rejects the idea that he is a philosopher, saying that he does not deserve the title, which is a departure from his suggestion in Oration 1 that he was precisely that instead of a panegyrist.49 Of course, his refusal of the title of philosopher is meant to convey his very worthiness of the title and his commitment to philosophy.50 In the same breath, he also pays Eusebia the compliment that she honored philosophy, which led her to bestow benefits on him.51 Julian even presents Eusebia as the embodiment of key philosophical virtues, and he compares her with Penelope (more below), all of which allowed him both to praise the empress and to promote himself. And praise and promotion required persuasion. Indeed, when he noted that his speech was in need of proofs to convince his audience that the empress truly possessed these virtues,52 Julian offered himself as an eyewitness, and in so doing communicated two things at once—she possessed them, he appreciated them. Philosophy thus forms the nucleus around which Julian and Eusebia both revolve in the text, one that demonstrates their shared paideia and frames and informs their literary personas. The learned Caesar lavishes high and perhaps sincere praise on Eusebia when he outlines her prudence, justice, mildness, and reasonableness, her love for her husband, her generosity with respect to money, and the honor that she bestowed on those in her household and her relatives.53 His effusive praise of Eusebia continues: she is a holder of practical wisdom, mildness, prudence, humanity, both reasonableness and generosity, and other virtues.54 Further, when Julian describes his private audience with Eusebia she is twice styled as prudence personified,55 one of the virtues he ascribes most often to her.56 The empress receives no less than five vital imperial virtues in sophrosune (prudence), dikaiosune (justice), praotes (mildness), phronesis (practical wisdom), and philanthropia (humanity), virtues that 49.  Or. 2, 120B–C. Cf. Or. 1, 3C–4B. 50.  Julian would repeat such recusatio in his Epistle to Themistius (see Elm 2012: 108–9 and n. 84). But Claudius Mamertinus would advertise and advance the public image of Julian as a philosopher at the start of 362 (see chapter 4). 51.  Or. 2, 120B–C. 52.  Or. 2, 116D: τεκμηρίων. See also Filippo 2016: 145. 53.  Or. 2, 106A. 54.  Or. 2, 112B: φρόνησιν καὶ πρᾳότητα καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ φιλανθρωπίαν ἐπιείκειάν τε καὶ ἐλευθεριότητα καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρετὰς. 55.  Or. 2, 123C: σωφροσύνης αὐτῆς. 56.  Aujoulat 1983a: 79–80; and Garcίa Ruiz 2012.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    75

Julian had applied conspicuously to Constantius, as we have seen. The panegyristCaesar’s citing of philanthropia is particularly notable, since Themistius had made this virtue the centerpiece of his first oration to Constantius and framed it as unique to this emperor. That Julian also ascribes “humanity” to Eusebia therefore would seem to challenge Themistius indirectly and to place the empress on a level of parity with her husband. If so, the effect would be to masculinize Eusebia to a degree, or perhaps to emasculate Constantius, who is shown possessing the same virtues as his wife,57 although he does monopolize andreia (courage/manliness). But Julian’s portrayal of Eusebia corresponds in many respects to certain literary “types” of women,58 or, more precisely, how orators considered that imperial women should be portrayed in public orations that reflected contemporary social expectations and values. In keeping with this view (and with the advice of Menander Rhetor), Julian does not neglect to praise Eusebia’s native Macedonia, her native city Thessalonica (Thessaloniki) in particular,59 her ancestry, including her father’s ennobling of their family as the first holder of the consulship,60 and the uprightness of her mother and of Eusebia herself.61 And yet Julian’s subsequent remarks reveal that Eusebia and her intimates were not the only intended audience for this speech, for Constantius himself is referenced rather pointedly through mention of his virtues and some of his activities. Eusebia, we are told, is the wife of an emperor who is brave, prudent, intelligent, just, useful, mild, and magnanimous.62 The Caesar then reinforces this praise and image of the Augustus by repeating most of these virtues in formulaic fashion: Eusebia is the wife of an emperor who is brave, magnanimous, and prudent.63 Subsequently, Constantius is also styled “the noble and truly godlike sovereign.”64 And near the very end of the panegyric, we read that Constantius crossed the Rhine by means of a pontoon bridge in 356,65 a gratuitous remark that promotes Constantius as an active commander in the field and suggests that Constantius and those around him were also part of this oration’s target audience.66 These comments illustrate that Julian conceived and employed his second panegyric as a means of

57.  Cf. James 2012: 52, 55, for the possibility of seeing Eusebia as leading her husband, and so implicit criticism of Constantius as uxorious. 58.  James 2012: 48–51. 59.  Or. 2, 106B–107D, 110B. 60.  Or. 2, 107D–109A. 61.  Or. 2, 110A–D. 62.  Or. 2, 109A–B. See also Filippo 2016: 129. 63.  Or. 2, 114B. 64.  Or. 2, 123A: Ὁ γενναῖος δὲ καὶ θεῖος ἀληθῶς αὐτοκράτωρ. 65.  Or. 2, 129B–C. 66.  See also Tougher 1998a: 116.

76      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

political communication between Caesar and Augustus, and that Eusebia continued to serve as a critical intermediary between the two men. In his first panegyric, Julian had ascribed megalopsuchia (magnanimity) to Constantius because of the latter’s comity toward his brothers and co-rulers and his pardoning of many of Magnentius’s supporters.67 The reappearance of this virtue in Julian’s speech on Eusebia, again in reference to Constantius,68 suggests that the Caesar was particularly interested in cultivating the Augustus’s generosity so that he might call upon it to his benefit. Thus Julian stresses that Constantius is a mild man by nature, and a useful and considerate emperor.69 While portrayals of Constantius as a mild, measured, and thoughtful emperor are traditional and even tactful in a panegyric on his wife, they nonetheless imply that he is a primary target of this imperial speech and that Julian wishes to encourage his exercise of these particular virtues. That Julian twice portrays Eusebia as a partner in Constantius’s deliberations is suggestive of her diplomatic role,70 and of the diplomatic role of the oration itself. Moreover, Julian describes the moderating role that Eusebia played in how Constantius dispensed justice and punishments.71 As noted above, Julian’s commendation of Eusebia could be backhanded, portraying Constantius as subservient to his wife’s wishes.72 Yet Julian ascribes prudence in particular to Eusebia, and offers himself as proof, so one might conclude, rather, that the panegyrist is genuinely praising the empress for providing her husband, the emperor, with good counsel and with opportunities for consideration of pressing and significant issues. In fact, Julian uses emphatic language here: “And I might add, with the utmost confidence that I am speaking the absolute truth.”73 This language signals to listeners/readers that a change in the trajectory of his encomium is imminent, that Julian has himself in mind as an example for how Eusebia has counseled Constantius to display clemency. Indeed, in a rather lengthy section, Julian inserts himself rather pointedly in the last half of his oration by relating his relationship with the imperial court prior to his promotion to Caesar, Eusebia’s intercession on his behalf in convincing Constantius to allow him to continue his philosophical training at Athens, and his own feelings about being conscripted into a share of the

67.  Jul. Or. 1, 18C–D (implied generosity), 19B, 38B, 41C. See also chapter 1, nn. 175 and 221. 68.  Or. 2, 109A–B, 114B. 69.  Or. 2, 114C. 70.  Or. 2, 114B: κοινωνὸν . . . τῶν βουλευμάτων; 114C: βουλευμάτων . . . κοινωνὸς. 71.  Or. 2, 114D–115D. 72.  Tougher 1998a: 119; and James 2012: 52–53; cf. Eutrop. 10.15.2: uxoribus deditior; and Amm. 21.16.16: uxoribus . . . nimium quantum addictus. See also Vatsend 2000: 133–36. On the image of women influencing men in late antiquity, see Cooper 1999: 11–19. 73.  Or. 2, 115C; cf. 115D, trans. Wright.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    77

imperial power alongside Constantius, among other things.74 It is here that the gratiarum actio or charisterios logos begins in earnest. Julian’s overt assertion of his panegyrical persona, in his relatively detailed autobiographical narrative regarding the favor that the empress had shown him, demonstrates that the underlying motives of his oration on Eusebia differ somewhat from those behind his first speech on Constantius, in which no such assertion is made. To be sure, the Caesar intends himself to serve as a proof of Eusebia’s penchant and track record for bestowing imperial favor and kindness, either directly herself or indirectly through Constantius, and his autobiographical reflections cohere well with this goal. But these comments seem to exceed what is necessary to solemnly praise the empress and repay a debt of gratitude to her. The passages on Julian’s status in 354/5 before his promotion to the Caesarship and on his subsequent campaigning on the Rhine frontier as Caesar in 356/7 reveal a keen interest in selfpromotion.75 His self-presentation regarding his actions and behavior prior to his promotion in late 355 depicts a dutiful and loyal subordinate who has acted according to Constantius’s wishes. Julian sought to maintain this image as Caesar, and this concern supports viewing his speech on Eusebia as serving a diplomatic function in communications with Constantius’s court, which was based at Milan in the first years of Julian’s tenure in Gaul.76 In describing Eusebia bestowing favor and kindness and moderating punishments meted out by her husband, Julian can be seen as appealing to her to continue such behavior, not only generally but also specifically on Julian’s behalf. Perhaps he has his consequential breach with Marcellus in mind, though it seems just as likely that through this appeal he hopes to build up a repository of goodwill generally. Further, in the course of his self-portrayal as a faithful member of the Constantinian dynasty, Julian also carefully presents Constantius as having looked after him and treated him with favor and generosity77—a reference to Julian’s upbringing that is not found in his first oration. As a result, the panegyrist-Caesar presents himself in turn as well disposed and faithful to his cousin.78 Constantius is again depicted quite positively as senior emperor in his conduct toward an important member of the imperial family, and Julian appears to be alluding not so subtly to his desire that Constantius continue that conduct. It is striking, however, that Julian also admits that some degree of tension had existed between him and his cousin later in his life, apparently in the year leading up to his promotion, for he presents himself as someone who was treated harshly, 74.  Or. 2, 116D–126B. See also Vatsend 2000: 120–32, who outlines Julian’s self-presentation and preoccupation with himself. 75.  Or. 2, 118A, 121A–C, 124A–D. 76.  See Barnes 1993: 221–22. 77.  Or. 2, 117D–118A, 121A. 78.  Or. 2, 118A: εὔνουν ἐμαυτὸν ἐκείνῳ καὶ πιστὸν παρέχων.

78      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

and recently.79 No less striking is how Julian follows up this admission, noting Eusebia’s intercession on his behalf and the role that she played in repairing Constantius’s perception of him.80 In fact, it was Eusebia who, we are told, had requested that Julian be sent to Greece, and to that end she petitioned Constantius to grant his assent.81 The empress therefore is shown playing an active, perhaps even a proactive, role in Julian’s fortunes as he reached the age of majority, and helping the two cousins maintain a semblance of cordial relations, at least publicly. Given that Julian frequently casts Eusebia as his steadfast benefactor, it is clear what he hoped to gain by producing an imperial speech on her: to retain her as a powerful patron for the foreseeable future. In connection with this, it seems that Julian respected the empress for her refinement. When he tells us that Eusebia was a woman of proper paideia and of sound intelligence,82 Julian asserts that she had a thorough Greek education.83 In so doing, perhaps he even implies that she was in some way receptive to traditional cult.84 Julian had previously stated that Alexander was the first among the Greeks to conquer Asia and to worship the sun there,85 a statement that prompted one commentator to consider whether Eusebia was Christian or pagan if Julian felt comfortable enough to make such a remark.86 But we need not doubt the empress’s commitment to Christianity. While it is unlikely that Eusebia was supportive of traditional cult, Julian’s statement may reveal that she was simply not hostile to it, that her learning allowed her to respect it. In any case, the learned Caesar deploys Penelope, the dutiful wife of Odysseus, as Eusebia’s exemplar in most respects.87 As a praiseworthy and well-known literary “type” of woman in Homer’s Odyssey, Penelope would not have been offensive to a Christian. In fact, this comparison and Eusebia’s presentation in the oration overall comport well with an idealized image of womanhood during late antiquity.88 And yet, given Julian’s selfpresentation as a learned man and a philosopher, it seems right to conclude that he valued Eusebia for her own learning and philosophy, if she actually possessed 79.  Or. 2, 118A–B. 80.  Or. 2, 118B–C, 120C, 121A–B. 81.  Or. 2, 118C. 82.  Or. 2, 109C: παιδείαν ὀρθήν, σύνεσιν ἐμμελῆ. 83.  Cf. Or. 2, 110B. 84.  Or. 2, 109C: παιδείαν ὀρθήν; cf. Ep. (61c Bidez) 422A: Παιδείαν ὀρθήν. For this phrasing denoting a sound education focused on the attainment of moral virtue, see Angiolani 2008: 71–72 n. 67. See also Filippo 2016: 131. 85.  Or. 2, 107C. 86.  Aujoulat 1983a: 80–81. See also Ugenti 2016: 17–18. 87.  Or. 2, 127C, D. On Eusebia and Penelope, see Garcίa Ruiz 2012: 82–85. In 362, Julian would use Penelope similarly to praise a certain Callixeine (Ep. 42 Wright [81 Bidez]), a priestess of Demeter and the Mother of the gods (PLRE 1.176, Callixena). 88.  See Cooper 1999.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    79

them, or at least that he wished to appear to do so. Indeed, it seems that Julian had Penelope in mind as a representation of Lady Philosophy herself,89 and thus he paid Eusebia a high compliment by association. Further, in the peroration, Julian reiterates Eusebia’s reasonableness, prudence, practical wisdom, and other virtues that have formed the basis for his speech of praise,90 and, once again, that he himself has been a witness to her generosity.91 If we are right to read this speech as partly serving a diplomatic function, then this would help to explain Julian’s ample testimony regarding Eusebia’s kind treatment of him. His speech also concludes on a protreptic note, that his panegyric should inspire others to praise Eusebia similarly.92 Enhancing the empress’s public profile in this way would only have increased Julian’s influence with her and with Constantius. As we have seen, his panegyric on Eusebia appears to have been crafted for a political purpose, which included a second opportunity to criticize Constantius implicitly in a few places, and, perhaps just as importantly, to engage in selfpromotion by providing his audience with skillfully constructed images of himself, both before and after his promotion to Caesar. It has been recognized that there are various layers to Julian’s second oration,93 various tasks that are being performed simultaneously. To be sure, we have seen the rhetorician-Caesar praise Eusebia profusely on several fronts, praise and possibly censure Constantius carefully in some places, and promote himself neatly as a man who is learned, who reluctantly took on a share of imperial power, and who repays his debts. R E P R E SE N T I N G C O N S TA N T I N O P L E : C O N S TA N T I U S A N D T H E M I ST I U S AT R OM E

Sometime in early 357, Themistius arrived at Constantius’s court in Rome to deliver his fourth oration on the emperor, though only the second one before the emperor himself.94 It may be that Constantius was celebrating his twentieth year, since 337, 89.  On Penelope as Lady Philosophy, see Helleman 1995. 90.  Or. 2, 129D. 91.  Or. 2, 129D–130A. 92.  Or. 2, 129D. 93.  Tougher 1998a: 122–23. 94.  The third oration is Oration 4, which Themistius apparently delivered before the Senate of Constantinople in winter 356/7, when Constantius was still residing at Milan (see Vanderspoel 1995: 96–100; and Leppin and Portmann 1998: 80–83). Because Themistius recycles several aspects of this panegyric into Oration 3, which he would deliver before Constantius at Rome in April/May 357 and which maintains several points of contact with Oration 1, I have preferred to give his third speech (Or. 4) secondary consideration in favor of his fourth one (Or. 3). Oration 4 is also far less revealing of Constantius as emperor and Themistius as panegyrist. See also MacCormack 1990: 40–43; and Vanderspoel 1995: 101–3. For an introduction to Oration 3, see Heather and Moncur 2001: 114–25. On Constantius’s visit to Rome, see n. 110 below.

80      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

as an Augustus (his uicennalia), and his thirty-fifth year since his promotion to Caesar in 324, which he would have observed at Rome early, although Themistius alludes not to these but to Magnentius’s suppression. While there was no shortage of occasions to commemorate, the victory over Magnentius was predominant.95 Themistius’s Third Oration to Constantius (Or. 3), which is titled “Ambassadorial [Speech] on behalf of Constantinople delivered in Rome” in the heading,96 is distinct from the first three speeches that Themistius produced. The Constantinopolitan Senate had selected the rhetorician-senator to deliver to Constantius both this panegyric and the Senate’s freely offered gold (aurum oblaticium), which was different from the crown gold (aurum coronarium) offered to an emperor on his accession and which was traditionally offered to him on other significant and symbolic occasions,97 such as the imperial anniversaries that Constantius was presumably celebrating at Rome in April/May 357. Thus, Themistius’s third panegyric to Constantius is both an ambassadorial speech and a kind of crown speech,98 two types that are combined skillfully into one oration that was probably delivered before the Senate of Rome as well. Themistius’s Oration 3 is of particular importance for understanding the relationship between panegyric and government in the fourth century because it was a speech delivered by Themistius in his official capacity as a senator of and an envoy from Constantinople to Constantius at Rome, and so is an example of the overtly diplomatic role that speeches of praise could play in an “open line” of communication between panegyrist, emperor, and audience. Themistius made his speech rather short;99 as we shall see below, however, he managed to convey much despite its relative brevity. The relative shortness of Themistius’s Oration 3 could suggest that it was but one in a long procession of such speeches given by ambassadors from cities across the empire who had come to Rome to offer Constantius both praise and coin. We do not know where exactly in Rome Constantius received Themistius and other ambassadors, but the senate house seems to be a distinct possibility.100 95.  Cf. Burgess 1988: 83–84; Vanderspoel 1995: 101 n. 138; Heather and Moncur 2001: 118–19. To be sure, Ammianus makes the suppression of Magnentius Constantius’s chief reason for visiting Rome (16.10); cf. Them. Or. 3, 42C–43D. 96.  Πρεσβευτικὸς [λόγος] ὑπὲρ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ῥηθεὶς ἐν Ῥώμῃ. 97.  Maisano 1995: 209 and 210 n. 1. On the aurum oblaticium, see A. H. M. Jones 1986: 430–31, 464–65, and 537. 98.  On these two speeches, see Men. Rhet. 2.422.5–423.5 (stephanotikos logos; 2.11 Race), 423.6– 424.2 (presbeutikos logos; 2.12 Race). 99.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 118. Menander Rhetor (2.423.4–5 [2.11.4 Race]) had recommended that a crown speech should not exceed two hundred lines. 100.  See Amm. 16.10.13: [Constantius] adlocutus nobilitatem in curia populumque e tribunali in palatium receptus fauore multiplici. Pacatus praised Theodosius in the senate house in 389.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    81

At the very outset of his oration, Themistius addresses Constantius as “the most divine sovereign” and wastes no time in presenting the purpose of his panegyric and visit to Rome: to repay the emperor for his benefactions to Constantinople with crown gold and with honor.101 That the panegyrist and senatorial diplomat addresses the living emperor as “most divine” (theiotatos) appears to reinforce his earlier position from Oration 1, in which Constantius, we should recall, is said to be above the laws.102 Indeed, Themistius compares his patron’s position as Augustus to Zeus’s position as lord of Olympus.103 This view of the emperor was well suited to Constantius, who was seeking to reify his political dominance in the West by visiting Rome after having defeated the usurper Magnentius in late 353, and it was flattering to Rome, whose inhabitants would have been nostalgic for the days when it had indeed been the Roman Olympus and unrivaled as an imperial city. Both Constantius and Themistius represented Constantinople, and both were strangers to the Eternal City. The occasion of an imperial aduentus was also the perfect opportunity to address the competition between Rome and Constantinople, to reassure Western senators of their positions, and to publicize concord.104 Scholars have observed one area of rivalry between Rome and Constantinople that plays out in Themistius’s oration: senatorial rankings.105 Themistius had been praised as a philosopher and promoted to senator of Constantinople at the rank of clarissimus (most renowned) less than two years before his visit to Rome,106 and once at Rome he vigorously supported his newly adopted city and its interests, one of which was a senatorial recruitment drive that would elevate the Constantinopolitan Senate to a level of parity with Rome’s.107 In a Western context, Themistius thus was especially useful to the emperor as an example of a highly learned and honored Easterner, one who, like most senators of Rome in 357, was also a supporter of traditional cult.108 Moreover, he was the official senatorial representative 101.  Them. Or. 3, 40C. 102.  Them. Or. 1, 15B. Cf. Jul. Or. 2, 123A, where Julian describes Constantius as “godlike” but not in superlative fashion. 103.  Them. Or. 3, 41D–42A. 104.  See Moser 2018: 298–303, for the competition between Rome and Constantinople. See also fig. 2, for Rome and Constantinople being promoted together at Rome in 357, when a new age of concord was proclaimed along with FELICITAS ROMANORVM; and n. 121 below. On imperial felicitas on third-century coinage, see Manders 2012: 193–99. 105.  Heather and Moncur 2001: 123. 106.  See chapter 1, nn. 33 and 34. 107.  See Penella 2000: 219 n. 19; and Heather and Moncur 2001: 122–25. On Constantius and the Senate of Constantinople between 350 and 361, see Moser 2018: 214–76. 108.  On Themistius’s usefulness, see Heather 1998: 135–39; and Heather and Moncur 2001: 97–101. On the conversion of the senatorial aristocracy, see Barnes 1995; Salzman 2002 and 2016. While Constantine and Constantius promoted many Christians to high office, the majority of the rank and file of the senatorial order at Rome remained ardently pagan through the fifth century.

82      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

of Constantinople at Rome and even a representative of Constantius, whose generosity and governance he could speak to in the years immediately following Magnentius’s defeat. Indeed, in his oration at Rome, the philosopher-statesman asserts that Constantinople can rightfully be designated Constantius’s city as much as Constantine’s, perhaps even more so, because of the former’s civic largess and euergetism,109 topics that would have been of interest to senators of Rome. It appears that Constantius had never visited Rome before 28 April 357, and he would never see the city again after departing on 29 May.110 This is not to say that Rome lacked importance. On the contrary, Rome was still a fundamental hub for senatorial politics and commerce, and her senators controlled vast estates and wealth in Italy, Sicily, Africa, Spain, and Gaul, and so were critical to governing the Western provinces.111 This no doubt helps to explain why Julian, in his Oration 1, stressed Constantius’s link with Rome through his mother, Fausta—who was born and raised there—in preparation for his celebratory visit to the city, although Themistius fails to mention her in his Oration 3. Further, Themistius does state that he was delivering Constantinople’s payment of honor to Constantius “in the watchtower of the world,”112 and that he was speaking “in the empress of cities.”113 Rome’s status thus is consistently emphasized as being chief among cities, with Constantinople taking second place.114 Such emphasis in a significant speech of praise is purposeful; it conveys Rome’s primacy and Constantius’s interest in acknowledging that primacy so as to gain and/or to solidify senatorial support there.115 In this light, we can see Themistius’s composite panegyric (presbeutikos/ stephanotikos) as a communiqué that was meant to help Constantius to cement strong ties between the East and the West, between the Senate of Rome and the last son of Constantine, and/or perhaps as part of a capstone to prior communications between emperor and senate culminating in Constantius’s procession in the Eternal City, for Themistius describes Rome as “the metropolis of triumphal monuments,”116 and he refers to Constantius’s victory celebrations there.117 More­ 109.  Them. Or. 3, 40C–41A, 47A–48D. Themistius had already portrayed Constantius as a benefactor of Constantinople a few months earlier in Oration 4 (see Vanderspoel 1995: 98–99). 110.  On Constantius’s visit to Rome, see MacCormack 1990: 39–45; Matthews 2007: 231–35; R. Flower 2015; and Moser 2018: 277–312. For the dates of his visit, see Amm. 16.10.20; and Barnes 1993: 222. 111.  See A. H. M. Jones 1986: 364–65, 525–27, 554–57, and 782. Q. Aurelius Symmachus is still viewed as the quintessential senator of Rome during the fourth century, in no small part because of his letter collection, which was consciously modeled on Pliny the Younger’s (see Salzman 2011 and Sogno 2017). For a “Rome perspective” in Symmachus’s and Ausonius’s speeches, see Chenault 2020. 112.  Or. 3, 41B: ἐν τῇ σκοπιᾷ τῆς οἰκουμένης. 113.  Or. 3, 41C: ἐν τῇ βασιλευούσῃ τῶν πόλεων. 114.  Or. 3, 41C–D, 42C. 115.  See Heather and Moncur 2001: 120–21. 116.  Or. 3, 42B: τὴν μητρόπολιν τῶν τροπαίων. 117.  Or. 3, 42C–D.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    83

figure 2 . Constantius II. Rome, solidus, 357 CE. Obverse: FL IVL CONSTANTIVS PERP AVG, with the emperor, in consular robes, holding his mappa and scepter. Reverse: FELICITAS ROMANORVM, VOT XXXV MVLT XXXX, with Roma and Constantinopolis seated facing one another. RIC 8.277.298. Courtesy of Leu Numismatik AG. Lot 541, 27 October 2019.

over, Themistius presents Constantinople as Rome’s steadfast ally and friend, an Eastern city that had sent forth material support to the West to dislodge Magnentius’s forces from Rome and all Italy.118 Themistius’s remarks here appear to address certain fears at Rome, but not fears related to being outdone by an Eastern polity and rival in the affections of an emperor; the rhetorician-senator seems to be conveying that Rome had nothing to fear from Constantius for its relationship with the usurper. He even compares the emperor’s entry into Rome after his defeat of Magnentius with that of Constantine after his defeat of Maxentius.119 One key message being broadcasted here, I suggest, is that Constantius would treat (or continue to treat) Roman senators in the same way that his father had after his own civil war; that is, he would compromise with and promote them to office in a display of clemency and magnanimity.120 The panegyrist spoke for his adopted Eastern city as its senator and envoy, but he also spoke for the emperor, whose confidence he had. The tone, substance, and setting of Themistius’s Oration 3 to Constantius all speak to the emperor’s desire for consensus in 357, a desire further illustrated by the very person and presence of his philosopher-senator and by gold coinage 118.  Or. 3, 43A–D. 119.  Or. 3, 44A–B. 120.  On Constantine’s treatment of senators at Rome following Maxentius’s defeat, see Salzman 2016. On Constantius’s evoking of his father’s war with Maxentius after his contest with Magnentius, see Moser 2018: 303–8; and Omissi 2018: 175–77, 190–92.

84      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

minted at Rome in this year (fig. 2).121 Constantius would have known that maintaining good relations with the senatorial order in Rome was critical to maintaining his control of the West. This had been evident to Magnentius, whose forces invaded Italy from Gaul and seized Rome in 350, and to Julian, whose own Gallic army would do much the same in 361; both Magnentius and Julian made various overtures to the Senate.122 Furthermore, this would help to explain why Themistius provided his senatorial counterparts at Rome with testimony regarding Constantius’s treatment of Constantinople and its senators, one of whom was Themistius himself.123 By drawing attention to Constantius’s largess to this Eastern city and its chief citizens, Themistius showed his Western audience what they could expect from the last son of Constantine, especially if they preserved good relations with him. This depiction of Constantius as an active and beneficent emperor also conveyed the emperor’s responsiveness to his subjects, a responsiveness that, I argue, was one of the vital functions that panegyrics performed during the fourth century. Another function of panegyric was, of course, self-promotion for the panegyrist. Themistius alludes to himself as no mere praise-giver whose aim it is to flatter, but one who is in fact a truth-teller,124 the claim and persona we already saw in Oration 1. But Themistius takes a step further in his third oration when he promotes himself as a well-chosen ambassador, since he, being a philosopher, was well suited to praising Constantius.125 In the kind of modesty we have come to consider traditional for a panegyrist, Themistius avers that he is not a clever speaker, is not great, and does not have a booming voice, nor is he able to clamor for something both easily and without drawing breath; instead, he is a philosopher.126 Had he stopped there, his self-promotion may have seemed somewhat unordinary, but, after addressing the most divine emperor directly once again, he continues and belabors the point: For the first time, there now comes on the scene a free and impartial witness of your virtues, who cannot be convicted of false testimony nor yet brought to judgement for handing out praises where they are not due because he has succumbed to money or is aiming for power. Rather he is one whom the title [philosopher] with which he has been enrolled constrains from uttering any phrase, however insignificant, for which 121.  Similar coinage depicting Rome and Constantinople on the reverse also appeared elsewhere and in the years immediately prior to 357; see RIC 8. See also n. 104 above. 122.  Amm. 21.8.3, 21.10.7, 21.12.24, 22.7.6 (Julian); Zos. 2.43.1–4, 2.49.1 (Magnentius). Magnentius had made the Roman senator Fabius Titianus urban prefect in 350 (PLRE 1.918–19, Fabius Titianus 6). 123.  Cf. Heather and Moncur 2001: 121–22. 124.  Or. 3, 41B. 125.  Or. 3, 44B–D. 126.  Or. 3, 44C.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    85 he shall not be held to account for all future time. For this reason he must attest to only those things which he admires and knows well.127

We have already seen similar language in Themistius’s Oration 1, his first speech before Constantius, which he opens with the emphatic “Now, for the first time,” and describes this speech as independent.128 Here, however, in his Oration 3 it is the panegyrist himself who is now independent. That Themistius makes this subtle shift could indicate that there were already some questions regarding his integrity as a philosopher, senator, and panegyrist in 357.129 If so, he used his panegyric at Rome to address some of those questions. Nonetheless, Themistius’s self-promotion did not serve him alone; it was part of his rhetorical strategy to strengthen what he said about his emperor. Near the end of his oration, he tells us that Constantius, who is addressed directly, exhibits mildness in victory, continues to be more prudent than wholly restrained private individuals, causes paideia to be counted beyond the highest reward, and closely follows philosophy.130 These remarks would resonate with a Western senatorial audience that was still interested in promoting consensus with the emperor in early 357.131 Constantius had projected himself to the Senate of Rome after 26 September 352—the day the city finally fell to him after the battle of Mursa a year before—by honoring several of its most influential members, such as Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus, who was twice urban prefect of Rome under Constantius and who held that office during the emperor’s aduentus there.132 But more would have been needed to solidify Western senatorial support for the long term. To that end, Constantius, who had hitherto not visited Rome, appeared holding the key monarchical virtues of mildness (praotes), prudence (sophrosune), and restraint (metrios;

127.  Or. 3, 44D–45A; cf. 46A, trans. Heather and Moncur, with brackets added. Interestingly, Themistius recycled some of the language in this passage, especially in the first line, from Or. 1, 1A. 128.  Or. 1, 1A: Νῦν σοι πρῶτον . . . λόγος . . . ἐλεύθερός. 129.  Cf. Heather and Moncur 2001: 130 n. 262. Themistius would respond directly to these very questions in Orations 17 and 34 during the reign of Theodosius; see Heather and Moncur 2001: 285–333. 130.  Or. 3, 45B; cf. 44C: βασιλέως . . . ἀγαθοῦ καὶ φιλοσόφου. 131.  After his ultimate defeat of Magnentius in late 353, Constantius resided at Arles and then along the Upper Rhine, where he campaigned in 354 (Amm. 14.10), before wintering at Milan, a pattern he would repeat over the next several years (see Barnes 1993: 221). Some senators at Rome had interacted with the emperor through letters and embassies after the battle of Mursa on 28 September 351. But Constantius’s aduentus at Rome allowed closer communication and contact, and so greater intimacy between emperor and senators (see Moser 2018: 289–92). See also chapter 1, n. 218; and below. 132.  PLRE 1.651–53; Tantillo 2014. Orfitus would remain urban prefect through 359, and he had a notable son-in-law in L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, who would succeed him as urban prefect in 364. Orfitus’s prominence and connections help to explain why he held the urban prefecture twice and for unusually long periods. See also Moser 2018: 278–87.

86      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

by implication), and of highly valuing paideia and philosophy.133 Themistius had closely associated Constantius with philosophy in his Orations 1 and 2, and his own name with the emperor, but in the East. At Rome, the monarchical virtues above that Constantius is said to possess take on greater significance in the aftermath of civil war.134 Immediately following civil conflict, panegyric was performed for the victor before a senatorial/elite audience and communicated his desire for consensus, both in the West and the East—as in the cases of Constantine in 313, Julian in 362, Valens in 366/7, and Theodosius in 389, among others.135 We should not underestimate the value to Constantius and his Western audience of his being publicized as a practitioner of restraint after civil war, even nearly four years after it had ended.136 Constantius is said to have acted with moderation, a virtue that Pliny the Younger, as a panegyrist and a senator of Rome, had commended in the emperor Trajan in 100 and that would still have resonated there in 357.137 To be sure, Themistius notes that Constantius had punished supporters of Magnentius,138 probably in Rome. But the panegyrist prefaces this comment with mention of Constantius’s self-restraint, and so communicates that the punishments of Magnentius’s men were limited and that Roman senators and provincials could feel at ease now. Addressing Constantius directly once more, Themistius adds that he had seen the tribunal where Constantius, by his eloquence, brought about the “usurper” Vetranio’s deposition on 25 December 350, that is, the tribunal at Naissus.139 By noting and indirectly linking Constantius’s Balkan victory with his subsequent one in the West, the rhetorician-senator manages to highlight not only the emperor’s perfect record of success against usurpers, but also his continuous movements and interest in overseeing his territory directly. As we saw in chapter 1, in his Orations 1 and 2 Themistius had portrayed Constantius as a philosopher on the throne because of his exercise of philanthropia (Or. 133.  Or. 3, 45B; cf. 46A. 134.  As we shall see in chapter 3, Julian expressed a keen interest in broadcasting himself as a holder of the same key monarchical virtues when he listed them in his Epistle to the Athenians during his subsequent contest with Constantius in 361. 135.  Constantine: Pan. Lat. 12(9). Julian: Pan. Lat. 3(11); see chapter 4. Valens: Them. Or. 7. Theodosius: Pan. Lat. 2(12). After the murder of Gratian in 383, Q. Aurelius Symmachus (son of Avianius) delivered a now-lost speech of praise on Magnus Maximus, Gratian’s killer, which served a similar function. Panegyric could also be used to legitimize a subject during civil war (see chapter 3). See also Omissi 2018. 136.  Or. 3, 45B: πρᾳότητι νικᾷς. 137.  Plin. Pan. 3.2, 56.3. In 321, Nazarius praised Constantine (at Rome?) for his moderation or selfrestraint in dealing with Maxentius, though before their civil war erupted (Pan. Lat. 4[10].9.3–5). 138.  Or. 3, 45B; Heather and Moncur 2001: 131 n. 265. 139.  Or. 3, 45C. This remark indicates that Themistius had traveled the uia diagonalis/militaris northwest from Constantinople through the Balkans to Naissus and eventually to Rome (cf. Or. 4, 49C–50A). On Constantius’s “deposition” of Vetranio, see chapter 1.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    87

1), and his adlection of Themistius himself to the Senate and his selection of Julian as his imperial colleague (Or. 2). Constantius himself reinforced this view in his public letter to the Senate of Constantinople that promoted Themistius to that body. But Themistius delivered his first two panegyrics before Eastern audiences at Ancyra and Constantinople. That he presented the emperor as a philosopher in a speech before him in a Western setting, in Rome, indicates that both Themistius and Constantius desired to perpetuate this image empire-wide, and that the image would have been timely in the West, territory that Constantius absorbed after defeating Magnentius at Mons Seleucus in Gaul in late 353. In 354, after Magnentius’s final defeat, Constantius became preoccupied with military operations on the Rhine frontier and with Gallus’s behavior at Antioch.140 In 355, while based at Milan, Constantius’s attentions continued to be on military operations in the West and ultimately on his general Silvanus’s revolt in Gaul in summer of that year.141 Subsequently, the emperor promoted his cousin Julian to Caesar in late 355 and then cooperated with him in a joint campaign along the Upper Rhine and in Raetia in 356.142 In short, Constantius’s bringing the West under his control would have been a gradual and time-consuming process (perhaps not unlike Julian’s own consolidation efforts in the East in late 361 through June 363), one that would have continued during his month-long residency at Rome in 357, when he finally celebrated his victory over his Western rival and put an exclamation point on his increasingly secure supremacy in the West.143 Themistius continued to claim to be offering something new in his Oration 3: that, unlike other panegyrists, he did not fix his gaze on the emperor’s trifling external features but on the soul of the man he was praising, just as he had claimed in Oration 1.144 This assertion and the way in which he demonstrates it are remarkable, for they subtly imply a high degree of intimacy with the emperor, and in so doing subtly dress the words of the praise-giver with a kind of imperial officiality. For a panegyrist, a claim of intimacy with the emperor had to be made delicately.145 Thus Themistius’s declaration would have caused those in his audience to pay closer attention to the contents of his panegyric. In this light, Themistius’s silence on Julian in Oration 3 is rather striking.146 Such an omission seems inexplicable, given that Julian had been Caesar in the West for more than a year by April 357. Moreover, Constantius had seen fit to include Julian’s name consistently in imperial legislation during this same period, when both men were joint consuls 140.  See Amm. 14.7, 10–11; Marcos 2015: 675–82. 141.  See Amm. 15.4–5; Marcos 2015: 688–89. 142.  See Marcos 2015: 689–91. 143.  See Moser 2018: 282–87, 298–303; and Baker-Brian 2022: 338–42. 144.  Them. Or. 3, 45C–D; cf. Or. 1, 2C–D; Heather and Moncur 2001: 132 n. 268. 145.  We will see a similarly subtle claim in Mamertinus’s panegyric before Julian (see chapter 4). 146.  Observed and emphasized by Heather and Moncur 2001: 120, 123.

88      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

(and for the second consecutive year in 357).147 Certainly Constantius’s stay at Rome was his moment alone, but a reference to Julian at least would have been expected, as Themistius had done in the peroration of Oration 2 and again in Oration 4.148 So why did Themistius overlook Julian in Oration 3? Themistius’s silence on Julian here is suggestive of an already growing tension between the Augustus and his Caesar, who had campaigned successfully in Gaul in 356 and who was gradually building a strong reputation for himself as a capable general, a reputation that might have made Constantius feel somewhat ill at ease and especially so during his procession at Rome, which was meant to showcase his generalship.149 In any case, Themistius’s exclusion of Julian from his speech at Rome would have sent a message to Western notables: they should look to Constantius and not to Julian for direction and favor. Indeed, Themistius ends his panegyric with a request for greater honors for Constantinople, whose claim to being Julian’s birthplace is not even alluded to,150 and with praise for Constantius as the sole inheritor of empire,151 a rather loaded comment, since Julian was then Caesar. In Oration 3, the panegyrist-senator closed with Constantius alone, which reflects the emperor’s preoccupation with being perceived as a holder of unitary power. V E N T U R I N G O N SE L F- G L O R I F IC AT IO N : J U L IA N A S C A E S A R A N D SE L F- P R OM O T E R

Like Themistius, Julian had shown himself to be a useful literary and political assistant for Constantius, but, unlike the panegyrist-senator, the panegyristCaesar’s self-promotion would develop into self-glorification under the guise of lauding his Augustus a second time. In summer 357, Julian achieved a remarkable victory against a large army of Alamanni at Argentoratum, after which he crossed the Rhine to press his advantage.152 The Caesar had only received official command  (hegemonia) of Roman forces in Gaul from Constantius earlier that year, though the situation in which he exercised military authority was complicated.153 147.  E.g., Marcos 2019a: 540 n. 80, for Julian as Caesar listed alongside Constantius in imperial legislation; and ILS 739, 740, for Julian’s name in “official” inscriptions. See also CLRE 356 and 357. 148.  For Julian in Or. 4, see n. 150 below. 149.  See Heather and Moncur 2001: 120. 150.  Cf. Or. 4, 58D–59A, where Themistius had done so earlier in winter 356/7 at Constantinople. 151.  Or. 3, 48C–D. In my view, this comment about Constantius is far more remarkable than Themistius’s request for further honors for Constantinople (48C), a request that would not have been unexpected. On Themistius’s request at 48C, see Vanderspoel 2012: 225–34. 152.  Amm. 16.12, 17.1. On Ammianus’s narrative on Argentoratum, see Blockley 1977; and Ross 2016b: 126–61. See also map 1. 153.  Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 278D: Ἐξ ὧν ὁ Κωνστάντιος νομίσας ὀλίγῳ μὲν ἐπιδώσειν, οὐκ εἰς τοσοῦτον δὲ μεταβολῆς ἥξειν τὰ τῶν Κελτῶν πράγματα, δίδωσί μοι τῶν στρατοπέδων τὴν ἡγεμονίαν ἦρος ἀρχομένου. See Blockley 1972a: 447, who sees “Constantius’ friendly intent towards Julian” in the

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    89

After this campaign ended, probably in early 358, Julian set to composing a commentary on the battle, and perhaps also on his prior campaign in 356.154 Not surprisingly, he sent reports to Constantius about all his doings at Argentoratum and subsequently across the Rhine,155 and these reports may have been the basis of his commentary. Indeed, the court jibes directed at the Caesar that Ammianus also relates, in particular that Julian was a Greek sophist and that he dressed his setbacks with rather fine words,156 suggest that his reports to Constantius were quite polished. In the East, Libanius learned about Julian’s historical account of the battle through a mutual friend who may have been disseminating it there,157 and he seems to have received a copy of Julian’s first panegyric on Constantius.158 Unfortunately, this account is not extant; but Libanius, in the context of discussing it, praises Julian “the rhetor and general,” who was both an Achilles and a Homer,159 one whose deeds in war thus would be more manifest to an Eastern appointment of Severus; and Matthews 2007: 91, 492 n. 20. Cf. Selem 1971, who argues that Ammianus underscores Julian’s subordination, such as when Ammianus states that exercitum regebat Seuerus in 357; Bowersock 1978: 39, who asserts that Julian had command of Roman forces from the beginning, since the Caesar takes some credit for the recapture of Cologne in 356; and García Ruiz 2013a: 87, who conversely asserts that Constantius did not put Julian in command of Roman forces in 357, since Constantius still appointed Julian’s officials, and so Julian’s comment above is embellishment. It would be better to see Julian striking a delicate balance in his Epistle above: downplaying both his lack of official military authority in 356 and the actual authority vested in his top generals, under whose direction Cologne was retaken, so that he might take a measure of credit for the early successes that occurred under his watch and perhaps due to some of his input and/or influence. While Constantius certainly exercised his right to appoint Julian’s officials, we need not doubt Julian’s statement that Constantius granted him command of the Gallic army in 357, that the Augustus granted his Caesar a measure of his official military authority, so long as there was agreement between Julian and Constantius’s generals, the celsae potestates (see Amm. 16.12.14, for deliberations and consensus in the lead-up to the battle of Argentoratum in summer 357). See also chapter 1, n. 22. 154.  See n. 157 below. 155.  Amm. 17.11.1: super omnibus gestis ad Augusti referre scientiam; cf. 16.12.67. 156.  Amm. 17.11.1: Iulianum . . . litterionem Graecum . . . gestaque secus uerbis comptioribus exornantem. Cf. Jul. Or. 3, 78B–D, for his ironic portrayal of those whom he calls makarioi sophistoi and how they regurgitate the thoughts of those whom they praise. Julian did not see himself as a sophist, and his remarks here, especially those at 79C–D, may have been directed toward those around Constantius at court. 157.  Lib. Ep. 38.6 Norman (35 Foerster): συγγραϕήν; Or. 13, 25: τὴν συγγραϕήν; cf. Eunap. Fr. 17 (Blockley): βιβλίδιον . . . τῇ μάχῃ . . . τῆς συγγραφῆς. Eunapius’s more specific term for Julian’s composition (βιβλίδιον) and his detailed narrative of the Caesar’s campaigns (via Zosimus) indicate that he had a copy of it. For the meaning of συγγραϕή here and elsewhere as a historical composition, see Matthews 1994: 263–67. See also Lib. Or. 15, 45; and nn. 160 and 161 below. 158.  Lib. Ep. 30 Norman (369 Foerster); Ross 2020a: 247 n. 25. For the circulation of speeches, see the introduction, nn. 24 and 92. 159.  Lib. Ep. 38.6 Norman (35 Foerster): ῥήτορά . . . καὶ στρατηγόν. Ἀχιλλεῖ μὲν γὰρ Ὁμήρου ἔδει. Cf. Lib. Or. 13, 25: ὁ αὐτὸς γενόμενος καὶ στρατηγὸς καὶ συγγραϕεύς.

90      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

audience.160 Libanius’s comparison (sunkrisis) of Julian with Achilles was apt and perhaps even influential, for the Caesar himself would make the same comparison after receiving Libanius’s letter, which is dated to 358/9. While we lack Julian’s battle narrative, Libanius’s framing of it in reference to Julian evokes Julian’s selfpresentation in his subsequent Epistle to the Athenians. Consequently, we can see Julian’s commentary on the battle of Argentoratum as an early apologia (defense), a kind of dress rehearsal for the open letters and self-panegyrics that he would write to various cities and communities in Greece during his civil war with Constantius in 361.161 The Caesar wrote his third oration, the Second Panegyric on Constantius (Or. 3), in Gaul in 358/9,162 after Argentoratum, when he would have had reason to feel confident in his conduct in and holding of the imperial office second only to Constantius. Indeed, Julian is self-assured when he lambastes learned sophists for their pretensions to offering novel praise to emperors that were merely emperors’ own views of themselves.163 One commentator has even seen a “rejection” of the principle of dynastic legitimacy in this panegyric;164 but this “rejection” is not explicit in the text, and it needs to be qualified. What Julian tells us here is that inborn “excellence/virtue” (arete) qualifies a man for kingship, and that it is better than the flawed character of one who is nobly born,165 not that dynastic considerations 160.  Julian’s sungraphe/biblidion can be seen as a response to Constantius’s assumption of full credit for the victory at Argentoratum by means of epinikia or “victory bulletins” ( = edicta, Amm. 16.12.69– 70) that Constantius had disseminated empire-wide. See also nn. 157 and 161; and Lee 2007: 37–38. 161.  When we consider the tone and substance of Libanius’s remarks (Ep. 38.6 Norman [35 Foerster]), we can see that Julian had written a commentary as his own victory bulletin, one that also served as a kind of self-panegyric. Libanius’s letter appears to date to 358/9, to after Julian circulated his sungraphe but before he produced his third oration, since no mention is made of the latter. See also nn. 157 and 160 above, and chapter 3. Julian, who knew his Plutarch, may have been inspired by the view that self-praise was acceptable in cases of self-defense (Plut. Mor. 540c, 541c). 162.  On this panegyric, see Bidez 1965: 174–76 and 1932: 108–15; Bowersock 1978: 43–44; and Athanassiadi 1992: 63–66. For studies on this panegyric, see Curta 1995; Drake 2012; Pagliara 2015: 97–102; and Alvino 2016. For the dating of 358, see Bidez 1932: 108–9; Bowersock 1978: 43; and Pagliara 2015: 97–99, 101. Cf. Marcos 2015: 702, for 358/9. The Persian king Shapur II apparently did not begin his attack on Mesopotamia until early spring 359 (Amm. 18.4.1); Julian may have completed his speech shortly before or at the outset of this Persian invasion, that is, when he had not yet received word of Shapur’s movements in the East (cf. Curta 1995: 196). 163.  Jul. Or. 3, 78D; cf. n. 156 above. 164.  See Curta 1995: 190, 194, 197, at 197. Cf. Jul. Or. 3, 80A–B, 81A–82C, 83C–D. 165.  Or. 3, 80A: ἀρετῆς . . . Ταύτην δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ φασιν ἐμφύεσθαι καὶ αὐτὴν ἀποφαίνειν εὐδαίμονα καὶ βασιλικὴν; 81A–B: Κρείττων μὲν εὐγένεια φαυλότητος γένους, κρείττων δὲ ἀρετὴ διαθέσεως οὐ πάντη σπουδαίας. Καὶ μή τις οἰέσθω τὸν λόγον δύσεριν καὶ βίαιον, εἰς τὴν συνήθειαν ἀφορῶν τῶν ὀνομάτων. This view is consistent with what Julian tells us about Commodus in his Kronia/Caesars: he was the son of the noble and excellent Marcus, but worthless. Julian also alludes to Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus, Marcus’s son-in-law and a “new man,” who would have made a better emperor than Commodus (312B–C; cf. 334B–D).

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    91

automatically disqualify him, and so that they should be rejected. If Julian had been putting forth the latter message subtly, then this would undercut the very basis on which his ability to make such a claim rested. It would constitute a real irony for a Caesar to reject dynastic notions of kingship in an imperial speech to his cousin, the senior emperor. Rather, what Julian seems to be proposing is that Constantius as emperor satisfied both qualifications for rule, that is, noble birth and virtue, though it appears that Julian actually has himself in mind here; or, better yet, he is adducing that arete makes a man such as him noble. This interpretation accords with Julian’s praise of the emperor Claudius II Gothicus as the founder of his and Constantius’s dynasty.166 Furthermore, while Julian apparently rejected dynastic considerations in naming a successor on his deathbed and left the choice to the army in 363,167 we need not retroactively superimpose this view on his earlier works. After all, as a full member of the Constantinian dynasty, Julian saw himself as a legitimate Caesar and a worthy deputy to Constantius in 358/9, one qualified for the higher rank of Augustus, and so it would be better to conclude that Julian allows for dynastic claims to power to be rejected in some cases when the claimant lacked excellence or virtue,168 unless we are to suppose that he considered his role as a panegyrist separately from his position as Caesar and a member of the imperial family. Notably, unlike his first panegyric, the heading of Julian’s second panegyric on Constantius does not actually state that it was dedicated to him, only that an emperor’s actions were the focus of the work, which alternatively functioned as some kind of treatise on kingship (“On the actions of the sovereign or On kingship/emperorship”).169 Constantius’s name is not even mentioned until near the end of the oration.170 This omission and delay of the Augustus’s name suggest that he was less important in 358/9 than he had been in 355/6,171 and, conversely, that the Caesar was more interested in his literary persona than had been the case previously. Further, given the current state of the evidence, we do not know whether Oration 3 was delivered (on Julian’s behalf) before Constantius or not, or simply circulated, since we lack external testimony. However, there are some detectable and notable features in the third oration. One scholar saw Julian’s third panegyric in chronological sequence as diplomatic in nature,172 while another described it as

166.  Or. 3, 51C; more below. On dynastic legitimacy and the principle of succession, see Ando 2000: 33–40; and Börm 2015. 167.  See Amm. 25.3.20; Ps.-Aur. Vict. Epit. 43.4; cf. den Boeft et al. 2005: 100–101. 168.  Or. 3, 81C. 169.  Περὶ τῶν τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος πράξεων ἢ περὶ βασιλείας. 170.  Or. 3, 94B. 171.  For similar delay and omission of Julian’s name, see Them. Orr. 2 and 3, respectively. 172.  Bidez 1965: 175.

92      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

“a cold, technically competent piece of work.”173 Although Julian was proficient in this labor, it is not a detached, impersonal publication. The opening sentences of the Caesar’s second panegyric on Constantius are suggestive of his strained relationship with his superior by 359,174 and they lay the foundation for Julian’s literary persona here by means of “figured speech”: Achilles, as the poet tells us, when his wrath was kindled and he quarrelled with the king, let fall from his hands his spear and shield; then he strung his harp and lyre and sang and chanted the deeds of the demi-gods, making this the pastime of his idle hours, and in this at least he chose wisely. For to fall out with the king and affront him was excessively rash and violent.175

Libanius had already compared Julian with Achilles, and the first lines in the proem of Julian’s third oration have an autobiographical quality that is skillfully communicated through the exemplum of the relationship between Achilles and Agamemnon, between the greatest warrior of the Greeks and his king during their joint campaign against Troy. That Julian criticizes Achilles for his behavior toward Agamemnon need not disqualify it as an implied sunkrisis. If Julian is using Achilles as a stand-in for himself here, as is almost certainly the case, then the Caesar is conveying that he has turned to writing, to “amusement” (διαγωγήν), perhaps including this very panegyric on Constantius, as a way to vent his anger at and frustration with his own king; that is, Julian implicitly sets himself up as an improvement over Achilles. After all, that is the very purpose of sunkrisis—to demonstrate that the one being compared is superior to the exemplum. Moreover, while the passage above can be read as one directed to Constantius as a fellow admirer of Homer, and so as a fellow learned man, it is rather striking that Julian would make such a comparison (and place it so emphatically), one that tacitly admitted that the relationship between Caesar and Augustus was not as harmonious as it was supposed to be. According to Julian, Achilles’s anger and hostility toward Agamemnon stemmed from his having been treated dishonorably and disproportionately: Though indeed the author of that tale tells us that Agamemnon also did not behave moderately and civilly toward his general, but first used threats and proceeded to insolent acts, when he robbed Achilles of his prize of valor.176

This passage strongly suggests the victory at Argentoratum,177 which Constantius claimed as his own, partly owing to the goading of his courtiers, in edicts and let173.  Browning 1978: 97. 174.  See Curta 1995: 186–87. 175.  Jul. Or. 3, 49C–D, trans. Wright. 176.  Or. 3, 50A, trans. Wright, which I have slightly modified. 177.  Athanassiadi 1992: 63; and Drake 2012: 38.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    93

ters that he as the senior emperor disseminated after the battle.178 These edicts apparently did not mention the Caesar’s exploits and perhaps did not mention the Caesar at all.179 While those around Constantius in traditional fashion assigned the victory at Argentoratum to his blessed auspices,180 the Caesar, who achieved that victory in person, should not have gone unrecognized. In Diocletian’s Tetrarchic system, victory titles were shared among all members of the imperial college, and it was routine for a Caesar’s cognomen or honorific title won in the field to be adopted by the Augusti.181 What Julian’s and Ammianus’s remarks thus suggest is that Constantius did not take his proper share of the credit for Julian’s victory against the Alamanni so much as he assumed all of it, and it is that which irked the Caesar.182 This is the context in which Julian wrote his second panegyric on Constantius. And he can be seen cleverly undercutting the Augustus’s imperial credentials by implying that Constantius (Agamemnon) had not acted “moderately and civilly,”183 that is, he had not displayed key monarchical virtues and so had not acted in keeping with his high office. Further, the learned Caesar uses the story of Achilles and Agamemnon to convey advice to Constantius in the form of a moral lesson by Homer,184 specifically that the emperor should not engage in hubris, that it is not necessary for him to be overwhelming in his use of power, and that he should not yield to his anger in his interactions with his top subordinate.185 Given the signaling of praise and veiling of criticism that I have highlighted in his Oration 1, Julian’s pointed advice here in Oration 3 implies that Constantius had in fact done the opposite of what the Caesar proposed. On the other hand, Julian discusses another lesson that Homer imparted about subordinate generals, that they should not bear a king’s disrespect badly. In so doing, the Caesar suggests that he himself should (and does) bear criticisms from his Augustan superior with self-restraint and mildness,186 virtues that were synonymous with good emperorship. Thus, Julian’s Homeric exemplum above is multilayered; it again illustrates his careful self-presentation and the dual 178.  Amm. 16.12.67–70; cf. Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.18: fortuna principis . . . et consilio . . . ; Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1. 179.  Amm. 16.12.70: super Iuliani gloriosis actibus conticescens. Ammianus also asserts that Constantius had claimed to have been on the battlefield directing the Roman army and even fighting in the front ranks. If so, that left little room for the Caesar. 180.  Amm. 16.12.68: felicibus eius auspiciis assignantes. This practice of tracing victories in the field won by generals back to the emperor’s auspicia had been standard since Caesar Augustus (RG 4.2; see Cooley 2010: 124; cf. Aur. Vict. 42.19). 181.  See Barnes 1976; Corcoran 2006; Leadbetter 2009: 97; and Hebblewhite 2017: 56–57. 182.  See also Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 279B–C. Cf. Potter 2014: 490, who sees Constantius taking the credit for Julian’s victory but compensating his Caesar with greater political latitude. 183.  Or. 3, 50A: μετρίως καὶ πολιτικῶς. 184.  See Pernot 2015: 93–99, for encomia as vehicles for advice. 185.  Or. 3, 50B. 186.  Or. 3, 50C: φέρειν δὲ ἐγκρατῶς καὶ πρᾴως τὰς ἐπιτιμήσεις.

94      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

nature of what he tells us about Constantius in speeches of praise. Indeed, while the rhetorician-Caesar casts Constantius in the overbearing role of Agamemnon he also acknowledges his cousin’s superior rank, and so his authority. Julian thus strikes a balance between criticizing Constantius’s inappropriate behavior toward him in a particular case and how the emperor favorably treated him as Caesar generally.187 In the context of the increased attention that Constantius’s courtiers gave to Julian after his victory at Argentoratum, a new demonstration of loyalty on Julian’s part would have been essential.188 According to Ammianus, Julian was named Augustus by the harmonious acclamation of his entire army after the battle.189 This act by the Gallic legions would not have been well received by Constantius, despite Julian’s rejection of it, and it likely played a role in the Caesar’s decision to commend his Augustus in a second panegyric. This view harmonizes with the overall tone of Oration 3, which squarely places this panegyric in the diplomatic mode, though less so than Julian’s oration on Eusebia. It appears that Julian also produced his third panegyric after publishing his commentary on the battle, a short work that made its way to the East and that would have contributed to Constantius’s growing suspicions.190 Indeed, there would seem to be a connection between the two, between Julian’s more assertive selfpresentation and Constantius’s concerns.191 In this light, Julian’s second oration on Constantius was a response to those concerns, one that affirmed his loyalty to his Augustus anew while expressing his own concerns with some elements of their affiliation. Both men bore responsibility for their deteriorating relationship, which would culminate in civil war in 361.192 Unlike Diocletian, Constantius was a lesser emperor whose insecurities proved a serious obstacle to long-term harmony with his Caesar, while Julian’s increasing insistence on projecting his imperial profile independently of his Augustus pushed the two men apart gradually.193 The Caesar’s second panegyric on his Augustus twice deploys a vocative marker that suggests delivery, or that it was intended: “O dear emperor.”194 There is something poised and sarcastic about such an address, one that Julian has not used until 187.  See Or. 3, 50C–D. 188.  Athanassiadi 1992: 63. 189.  Amm. 16.12.64: tunc Iulianus . . . Augustus acclamatione concordi totius exercitus appellatus. 190.  Cf. nn. 157, 160, and 161 above. 191.  See Lib. Or. 18, 90; Amm. 17.11.1–4, 20.4.1; Eunap. Fr. 20.5 (Blockley); and Zos. 3.8.3. 192.  Cf. Matthews 2007: 93–94; and Heather 2020: 90, for the inevitability of Constantius’s and Julian’s relationship ending in failure. 193.  To mitigate or even forestall the potential for regional revolts and civil war, Diocletian shared power first with one and then three colleagues. Indeed, this is likely why Diocletian first made Maximian Caesar in 285 and then quickly promoted him to Augustus less than a year later. On Diocletian’s acts and motives, see S. Williams 1985: 43–49, 63–68; and now Waldron 2022: 18–19, 36–37, and 89–102. 194.  Or. 3, 50C, 53B: ὦ φίλε βασιλεῦ.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    95

now. A clearer indication of Julian’s self-confidence is discernible in his remark that “the affairs of our family began with Claudius,”195 that is, he and Constantius both emanated from the line of Claudius II Gothicus.196 This was a traditional Constantinian assertion, but we should recall that Julian had refrained from inserting himself into the text of his first oration on Constantius, an omission that is particularly evident where the Caesar praises Constantius for his connection with Constantius I and Constantine; Julian, too, was connected with both men, though he does not say so, instead preferring to focus on his cousin’s illustrious ancestry and strong claim to power. That Julian now speaks of “our family” and inserts himself alongside Constantius, with the implication that both men had an equal claim to rule, is a clear marker of the Caesar’s increasing assertiveness and his interest in managing his own public image. Julian outlines Constantius’s connections with Maximian, Constantius I, and Constantine in some detail as part of a larger sunkrisis using the Pelopids that not only publicizes dynastic legitimacy,197 but also alludes to dynastic dysfunction; both the Pelopids and Constantinians had been depleted by internal strife. And Julian’s reference to their mutual ancestry is not an isolated case, for he also refers to his and Constantius’s mutual honor being usurped by Magnentius in 350.198 Remarkably, Julian used similar language to describe what Agamemnon had done to Achilles, that is, what Constantius had done to him.199 And yet the Caesar commends Constantius for having declared another kind of amnesty after his final defeat of Magnentius.200 If this speech is partly diplomatic in nature, then such a reference to the emperor’s pardoning of a rival would have significant meaning—namely, that if Constantius could forgive supporters of the “barbarian” Magnentius,201 then he could (and should) be similarly generous to his own blood relative. No less instructive are the panegyrist-Caesar’s statements about proper piety and worship, that a general or king should always worship a god in accordance with a priest and prophet, which appears to be a reference to the emperor as pontifex maximus (chief state priest).202 This image runs counter to Themistius’s 195.  Or. 3, 51C: τά γε μὴν τῆς ἡμετέρας ξυγγενείας ἤρξατο μὲν ἀπὸ Κλαυδίου; cf. Or. 1, 6D. 196.  A useful but fraudulent genealogy; see Syme 1983: 66–73; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 219–20 n. 6; Wienand 2012b: 234–41; Hekster 2015: 225–33; and Ware 2021: 113–15. 197.  Or. 3, 51C–52B. See also Alvino 2016: 541–44. For Julian’s use of sunkrisis in his first panegyric, see chapter 1. 198.  Or. 3, 58A: ἀφελέσθαι τοῦ γέρως ἡμᾶς. 199.  Or. 3, 50A: τοῦ γέρως ἀϕαιρούμενον. 200.  After Mons Seleucus: Jul. Or. 3, 95D–96A. After Mursa: Jul. Or. 3, 58A–C; cf. Or. 1, 38B. See also n. 67 above. It seems that Constantius also issued some kind of amnesty after the suppression of Silvanus in 355 (Jul. Or. 3, 100A–C). 201.  On this representation of Magnentius in panegyrics, see Omissi 2018: 171–76. 202.  Or. 3, 68B–C; Curta 1995: 192–93, 208. See also Athanassiadi 1992: 74–75; Alvino 2016: 544–50.

96      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

philosopher-emperor, who is not shown propitiating the gods but ruling on their behalf.203 Julian returns to this theme later in his oration, and it is perhaps another instance of the Caesar letting his Christian mask fall somewhat.204 When he speaks of divine retribution at Mursa (Osijek), where Constantius prevailed against Magnentius, he refers to a nameless god or divinity.205 More strikingly, he declares, “Again, no man must stand apart (apostatize) from lawful worship nor lightly esteem such honor to the higher one, but rather consider that to be virtuous is to be scrupulously devout.”206 By mentioning “the higher one,” Julian made deft use of a neutral type of religious language,207 and it is suggestive of his desire to build some support and even consensus in the religious sphere. He also states, disapprovingly, that temples of Helios had been despoiled, and that some of the perpetrators had been punished,208 though he fails to tell us what form their punishment took. What matters here is that we can see that the Caesar’s Christian mask has slipped even more since his panegyric on Eusebia, that he is interested in expounding on religious matters, and that he felt strong enough to stray somewhat from the official Christian line of his family.209 All these remarks on religion also appear to be part of a dress rehearsal for one envisioning his role as imperial pontifex. Julian’s self-presentation as Caesar is most acute at the culmination of a philosophical tutorial,210 where he inserts what appears to be a lengthy treatise on proper rule with himself in mind as general and administrator. Scholars have already

203.  Or. 3, 90A. Cf. Athanassiadi 1992: 90–93; and Curta 1995: 208, for Julian’s views in his Epistle to Themistius, which takes issue with Themistius’s notion of kingship. 204.  Cf. Jul. Or. 2, 110B, 120B–C; Aujoulat 1983a: 91–94, for other, more subtle hints of Julian’s true religiosity in his panegyric on Eusebia. See also Jul. Or. 2, 109C: παιδείαν ὀρθήν; Or. 3, 68C, 80C–D, 89A. Julian had rejected Christianity secretly when he was about 20 (Jul. Ep. 47 Wright [111 Bidez] 434D). 205.  Or. 3, 59A: δαίμων τιμωρός; 59B: οὐκ οἶδα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεῶν ἢ δαιμόνων. See map 1. 206.  Or. 3, 70D: Οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τῆς ἐννόμου θεραπείας ἀποστατέον οὐδὲ τὴν τοιαύτην τιμὴν ὑπεροπτέον τοῦ κρείττονος, θετέον δὲ ἐν ἀρετῆς μοίρᾳ τὴν εὐσέβειαν τὴν κρατίστην; trans. Wright, which I have modified. 207.  τὸ κρείττων. Cf. Curta 1995: 193, who notes that Julian’s use of τὸ κρείττων reflects Neoplatonic influence. Nonetheless, as Drake 2012: 42 points out, τὸ κρείττων was part of an apparent “lingua franca of religious thought in the fourth century, centered on vaguely monotheistic thought and framed around solar imagery.” Indeed, “the higher one” is an inherently neutral term, and so would have had wide currency; it was used by other Greek men of letters, such as Himerius in a panegyric on Julian at Constantinople in 362 (see chapter 4). The inherent neutrality and flexibility of this term is illustrated by Constantine’s frequent recourse to it to describe God (e.g., Euseb. VC 2.24.1, 2.25, 2.26.1, 2.28.2) and by Libanius’s subsequent use of it to describe Constantius as Julian’s Augustan superior: τῷ κρείττονι (Or. 18, 97). 208.  Or. 3, 80C. See also Curta 1995: 194–95. 209.  Cf. Beckwith 2005: 31–34, for Julian’s involvement in the condemnation and exile of Hilary of Poitiers in 356. 210.  Or. 3, 68C–70B (Plato on the soul), 79A–85D.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    97

perceived a “political manifesto” here,211 but they have not appreciated Julian’s selfpromotion as a statesman more fully, nor have they outlined and discussed what his “political manifesto” comprises, and why, in detail. According to the rhetorician-Caesar, the good king/emperor par excellence shall 1. Be pious and worship the gods (pl. theon; Or. 3.86A) 2. Be pious toward and take care of his parents, both when alive and dead (86A) 3. Be well disposed to his brothers, mild and gentle to strangers and subjects (86A) 4. Aim to govern for the benefit of his subjects, doing good as its own reward, since he cares for the citizens and cities (86A–B, D; cf. Amm. 16.5.14, 17.3) 5. Seek wealth in friendships, not in gold or silver (86B; cf. Amm. 25.4.15) 6. Be least content in war, though brave and magnificent, and utterly hate civil strife (86B) 7. Engage his enemies bravely and defend himself strongly when attacked, and impose complete defeat on them (86B–C; cf. Amm. 16.12, 17.1) 8. Refrain from unnecessary and excessive bloodshed, which causes pollution (86C) 9. Share in the labors of his soldiers and serve as an example to them and others (86C–88A; cf. Amm. 17.1.2, 20.5.4, 23.5.24, 25.2.2, 4.4–5) 10. Be a prudent sovereign and train the soldiers to be his partners in war and keep them obedient (86D–88B; cf. Or. 1.23B–26A) 11. Check civil strife, wicked habits, extravagance, licentiousness, hubris, illegality, injustice, and greed in the cities (88B–C; cf. Jul. Epp. 60, 114, 115 Bidez) 12. Be a careful legislator, add just statutes as proper, and be a good role model (88D, 90C) 13. Be a guardian of the laws and of justice as an impartial judge (88D; cf. Amm. 22.9.9–11, 22.10) 14. View and care for his fatherland as both his commonwealth and home (89A) 15. Preside as a judge over cases where the defendant can be rehabilitated, and be merciful; refrain from presiding over capital cases, preferring to appoint a panel of judges (89B–D)212 16. Appoint subordinates to the appropriate office depending on their nature and character: brave, bold, highly energized, and intelligent men to military 211.  See Bidez 1932: 113; and Curta 1995: 182, 209. Cf. Athanassiadi 1992: 64, 66, for Julian having composed auto-panegyric. 212.  This may reflect Julian’s guiding policy as sole Augustus in late 361, when he appointed a military commission at Chalcedon to try the high civilian officials of Constantius’s government, some of whom were executed (see Amm. 22.3; and chapter 4).

98      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

posts; just, mild, humane, and compassionate men to administrative office; and men who have both sets of qualities to the highest offices in the state (90C–91B; cf. Pan. Lat. 3[11].25.3–5) 17. Appoint good men to be his councilors and top officials and rely on the best of them to choose lesser officials (91B–D) 18. Be on guard against deception by wicked men masquerading as good (91C–D) 19. Provide subsidies for farmers to help them maintain their livelihood and contributions to the guardians and assistants of the king (91D–92A) In compiling this manifesto, Julian draws heavily from Platonic texts, such as the Republic, and Dion of Prusa’s Oration 1, “On Kingship,” probably influenced the Caesar as well. More importantly, his treatise on the duties and responsibilities of the good king/emperor, I would suggest, illustrates a responsiveness on Julian’s part to his subjects in Gaul and perhaps elsewhere, the vast majority of whom would have welcomed the substance of what he said here; if known to them, his manifesto may even have reminded them of what the Caesar had already accomplished in the last three years, and so given them further grounds for supporting him and his administration. That the treatise on good kingship above possesses a self-referential quality is also consistent with Plutarch’s advice on the statesman’s ability to use self-praise for the “common good,” advice that may well have guided or informed Julian’s assessment of praise here.213 Further, such an outline of the good king/emperor in a panegyric served as a kind of mirror for princes, one that Julian held up for himself as much as for Constantius. Indeed, Julian’s Oration 3 on Constantius has been seen as a Fürstenspiegel (mirror for princes).214 But, unless we conclude that Julian’s manifesto implicitly and wholly charges that Constantius had fallen short of what constitutes a good king/emperor, that is, he had failed in his duties, such as in worshipping the gods and in refraining from causing miasma (cf. 1–6, 8), this oration is not an “ ‘anti-encomium,’ ”215 at least not completely.216 Rather, it is a form of self-reflection and praise that was both retrospective and prospective. Julian’s third oration is a complex and unique panegyric.217 It has been concluded that the main addressee of this speech is the “audience,” one composed of members of the educated elite.218 If so, perhaps both Western and Eastern audiences, although I argue that one key spectator of this oration was Julian himself. 213.  See n. 1 above. 214.  Curta 1995. 215.  Cf. Curta 1995: 191, 196–97: “ ‘anti-oration.’ ” 216.  See Curta 1995: 209. For better examples of an “anti-encomium,” see Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians (chapter 3) and his Antiochikos/Misopogon (chapter 5). 217.  See Drake 2012: 42. 218.  Curta 1995: 186, 197, 209, esp. 186.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    99

When Constantius raised Julian to the Caesarship in late 355, he specifically did so envisioning that his second Caesar would solely or primarily play a military and political role in the West in much the same way that Gallus had been intended to do in the East.219 To be sure, what Julian tells us in his treatise above reflects his primary concern with military duties (6–10). Constantius had even given Julian a handwritten memo outlining his conduct or authority,220 and the contents of this memo apparently harmonized with Constantius’s separate communiqué to his top military and civilian officials in Gaul.221 Despite these written instructions, details of which we lack, the exact scope of the Caesar’s authority and influence was something that he would have needed to negotiate in Gaul222—that is, Julian would have needed to test and to understand precise and theoretical limitations on his exercise of power in practice. Indeed, this view is evident in his admission that he occasionally challenged Marcellus and perhaps other generals,223 and in his subsequent interactions and increasingly strained relationship with the praetorian prefect of Gaul, Flavius Florentius, who denied that the Caesar had the authority to overrule him as praetorian prefect in the civil sphere;224 this, by implication, shows that Julian possessed military authority. In this light, the presence of a treatise on good rulership, which includes a general respect for traditional cult (1), in his panegyric on Constantius reads as Julian’s attempt to (re)define the parameters of his office for himself, and possibly also for Constantius, whose support he still needed in 358/9. The Caesar also seems to have been pondering what an increase to his power and authority would look like as an Augustus or senior emperor (autokrator, 10), for his treatise reflects on greater administrative competencies than those he initially possessed as Caesar (10–19). Since Julian’s third panegyric dates to after his victory at Argentoratum and his (rejected) nomination as Augustus by the Gallic army, the rhetorician-Caesar would have had good reasons for imagining and considering his credentials and viability as a future Augustus. And yet Julian does not end his speech with a self-reflective manifesto. He reiterates Constantius’s good relations with his two brothers,225 and his noble war of 219.  Blockley 1972a. 220.  Amm. 16.5.3: libellum . . . quem Constantius . . . manu sua conscripserat; cf. Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 278A, 282B: γραπτοὺς . . . ὥσπερ νόμους. Matthews 2007: 88 sees this memo as defining Julian’s “conduct” as Caesar, whereas I suggest seeing it as generally outlining his “authority.” In any case, Julian negotiated his role and power (see nn. 222, 223, and 224 below). 221.  Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 277D. For a list of these officials and their dates of service, see Caltabiano 1979: 439–41. 222.  See Blockley 1972a: 446–49, 452–53, for the gradual development of Julian’s authority and power; and Caltabiano 1979: 418–19, 436–39. 223.  Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 278C–D. Cf. n. 153 above. 224.  See Amm. 17.3; Caltabiano 1979: 424–25; Matthews 2007: 88–90; and Potter 2014: 490–91. Cf. Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.3–4; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 399 nn. 28 and 29. See also Pack 1986: 62–98. 225.  Or. 3, 94B–95A.

100      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

vengeance against Magnentius.226 These comments, which follow the manifesto, would seem to have been made to project the view that the treatise on good rulership above was directed to and/or reflective of Constantius as emperor. This careful approach is also clear in one of Julian’s subsequent statements, which has an autobiographical quality: he tells us about the noble man who is made to bear insults directed at his sense of honor and self-worth, along with charges that are fabricated against him, although Constantius is framed as the subject.227 Further, he refers to those senators of Rome who were the most notable in standing, wealth, and intelligence and who fled to Constantius in Pannonia before the battle of Mursa.228 The emperor received these senators well, and Julian offers them as “manifest proof ” of Constantius’s generosity.229 But Constantius apparently displayed benevolence toward senators before the battle, not afterward. There were also some senators, by implication, who had not so visibly moved to Constantius’s side, and the panegyrist-Caesar is silent on how these were treated. This silence suggests that some of Rome’s senators had not fared well after Constantius defeated Magnentius; indeed, Julian had already noted that some of those allied with Magnentius had paid the penalty, though for other, unrelated offenses.230 Therefore, Julian counted the Senate of Rome among his audience, and his remarks can be construed as diplomatic, or subversive, not unlike the oration as a whole. In addition to the “manifest proof ” above, Julian elsewhere deployed the lexicon of persuasion. His references to various kinds of proofs regarding Constantius contribute to the latter’s ironic portrayal. When commending Constantius for behaving toward his father, Constantine, properly and for displaying good character, the rhetorician-Caesar speaks vaguely of trusted evidence.231 He next mentions the “probable proofs” of Constantius’s experience in war and manliness when relating the war with Magnentius,232 whereas he refers to the singular “sure proof ” of the loyalty of Constantius’s soldiers and subjects during an attempted usurpation that seems to be that of Silvanus in Gaul in 355.233 Julian concludes his speech by stating that he could offer “clear proofs” of Constantius’s right conduct in the imperial office if requested,234 but he does not have any more time for “leisure” 226.  Or. 3, 95A–D. 227.  Or. 3, 96B–D. 228.  Or. 3, 97B–C. 229.  Or. 3, 97B: τεκμήριον . . . ἐμϕανές. 230.  Or. 3, 96A; cf. 100 B–C. 231.  Or. 3, 93D: μαρτυρίαν πιστήν. 232.  Or. 3, 95D: σημεῖα. On these proofs, see chapter 1, n. 180. 233.  Or. 3, 98C: ἐναργὲς . . . τεκμήριον. See chapter 1, n. 179. Cf. Jul. Or. 1, 6D and 47B, for his other uses of this kind of proof when discussing Claudius Gothicus and the joint value of Tyche and phronesis, respectively. 234.  Or. 3, 101D: ἐμϕανῆ τὰ τεκμήρια.

Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation    101

(schole),235 that is, time to praise Constantius further in a panegyric, and that he must return to the task at hand, which is perhaps an allusion to his campaigning along and beyond the Rhine and/or to some matters of administration.236 The implication is that he had not already provided such proofs, because he could (or would) not. These comments are ruthlessly deflating, especially since they are the very last lines of the speech. And yet this oration is a complicated literary production that conveys several messages about author and subject simultaneously, and for different audiences. We have seen that Constantius is worthy of praise generally and that he has wronged his Caesar, that Julian lauds his Augustan superior but not without qualification, and that after several years in Gaul Julian’s confidence had increased; moreover, his interest in updating his own imperial image followed accordingly with an embedded political manifesto. In short, this third panegyric is both a diplomatic and a (self-)promotional text, one calibrated to maintain good relations with Constantius while also negotiating Julian’s new public profile after his victory at Argentoratum. C O N C LU SIO N

To conclude, we have explored three imperial orations from 357–359 in this chapter: two from Julian and one from Themistius, all three of which exhibit a prominent concern on the part of both panegyrists with framing their speeches, at least in part, as diplomatic texts, which formed a prominent mode of political discourse with Constantius’s court and with the educated elite in the West. As I have argued, Julian and Themistius designed these panegyrics to finesse different relationships with Constantius, including their own, and to promote themselves. As a senator of and an official envoy from Constantinople, Themistius produced a formal diplomatic text in his Oration 3, which he delivered at Rome before Constantius during significant celebrations there, and probably before the Senate of Rome as well. The skillful presentation of the emperor and his relationship with Rome in that oration is suggestive of Constantius’s interest in building consensus with his Western subjects and with the Senate of Rome in particular, not unlike Julian’s first panegyric in 355/6. But Themistius also displays a heightened concern with his self-presentation as a philosopher-panegyrist in Oration 3, more so than in his first two orations, which suggests that his and Constantius’s relationship had entered a new, closer phase and that there were already questions regarding Themistius’s blending of philosophy and praise-giving, questions he sought to address. In Julian’s case, his highly original panegyrics on Eusebia and Constantius show a keen desire on his part to maintain good relations with his two imperial benefactors 235.  Cf. Or. 3, 49C: διαγωγήν (amusement). 236.  On this peculiar ending, see Allard 1906: I.484–85.

102      Panegyric, Diplomacy, and (Self-)Presentation

in general. So we should see these texts, in part, as diplomatic in nature and produced informally but adroitly in a bid to advance the Caesar’s interests, which would have required continued political support from his Augustan superior while he was still building his own power base in Gaul among the military and civilian populations. Consistent with this purpose, Julian’s second and third orations also show him as a self-promoter, explicitly in some places and implicitly in others, which led the rhetorician-Caesar to make further subtle criticisms of his Augustus that invite comparisons between the two emperors. In fact, Julian ventured on self-glorification (though to a lesser extent than in his subsequent orations). Praise discourse thus was sufficiently flexible to allow greater space in a text for the praise-giver, as in Julian’s treatise on good kingship, which does indeed read as a political manifesto. By producing a learned oration on the empress, perhaps the first by a Caesar, and a particularly multivalent one on the emperor, Julian also effectively advertised his own paideia and his priorities and preferences. As we shall see in subsequent chapters, Julian’s acknowledgment of the usefulness of praise for purposes of self-promotion would only increase, first during his civil war against Constantius ( chapter 3) and then during his consolidation of power in the East after Constantius’s death (chapters 4 and 5). And in all these cases, panegyric performed a crucial role as a means of dialogic communication between emperor and subject in efforts to build consensus.

3

Laudatiua Materia Panegyric, History, and Legitimization in a Period of Imperial Transition, 360–361 The writer of an encomium has one concern only, to praise and gladden the recipient by any means necessary, and if he needs to lie to reach that goal, he will think little of it. But history cannot allow any falsehood to intrude, not even a momentary one, any more than a windpipe, as physicians say, can take in a foreign object. lucian, hist. conscr. 7, trans. marincola

It has been observed that, “on the one hand, usurpers were failed rulers, while, on the other, many emperors were successful usurpers. The former received a bad press, the latter managed to outgrow their dubious origins.”1 This observation highlights the importance not only of outcome in determining whether a ruler was a “usurper” or an “emperor,” but also the means by which that outcome was communicated and memorialized by his successor—that is, media. While failed rulers received a bad press, successful usurpers also saturated their subjects with their own good press, typically through panegyrics, diverse pronouncements, and coinage. And good and bad press was fundamentally focused on legitimization. What does the substance of such communication reveal about the basis of an individual’s claim to rule? What was imperial “legitimacy”? And what part could imperial

1.  Sivan 1996: 201. On emperors and usurpers, see Wardman 1984, Szidat 2010, and Omissi 2018. A focal point of press, both good and bad, was the (il)legitimacy of imperial claimants. On the concept of legitimacy, see Omissi 2018: 28–34, esp. 33–34, for two criteria that distinguish a usurper from an emperor. According to the first of these criteria, Julian should be classified a usurper in 360–361 because his elevation to Augustan rank was not initially recognized by Constantius as senior emperor; Constantius ultimately did acknowledge Julian as his heir, and so as Augustus, before he died on 3 November 361 (Amm. 21.15.2, 5; cf. Pan. Lat. 3[11].27.4). Did this acknowledgment retroactively legitimize Julian as Augustus from 360, or legitimize him only from 3 November 361 forward?

103

104      Laudatiua Materia

praise and ideology play within historical writing, and therefore within historical understanding? In the second century, the satirist and rhetorician Lucian of Samosata had famously built a “great wall” between history and encomium, a distinction seemingly adopted by Eutropius, Ammianus, and the Scriptor Historiae Augustae in epilogues to their historical works, in which they advised a “grander style” (stilus maior) in treating living emperors, that is, they suggested panegyric.2 But the boundary between encomium and history in antiquity was not so neat. Panegyrics could be and were used as historical sources on a dead emperor,3 and praisegiving sometimes intruded into if not drove a historical narrative. When the soldier-turned-historian Velleius Paterculus ended his Historia Romana (Roman History) with the public life and career of the future emperor Tiberius, his former commander in Germania and Pannonia and his still-living patron, he shaped his narrative into a form of panegyric.4 Subsequently, Tacitus’s Agricola, his historical monograph on his deceased father-in-law Cnaeus Julius Agricola, the heroic general who strengthened Rome’s hold on Britain, is imbued in large part with the stuff of panegyric, with the virtues of the general in public and in private, in peacetime and in war—all set against his suspicious and ruthless employer, the emperor Domitian, the villain.5 In the third century, Herodian’s portrayal of Marcus Aurelius as an exemplary emperor is nothing but panegyrical.6 And in the fourth, Praxagoras of Athens wrote a (largely lost) panegyrical history of Constantine.7 Praxagoras was followed by the bishop and Christian apologist Eusebius of Caesarea, who experimented with panegyric by embedding it in his Historia ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History), transferring it into his Oratio de laudibus Constantini (Oration in Praise of Constantine), and finally by blending it into his Vita Constantini (Life of Constantine).8 As I will demonstrate, panegyric similarly permeates and informs the historical accounts of Julian and Ammianus on the former’s pronouncement at Paris (Lutetia) in early 360 and on his occupation of Illyricum in mid/late 361, accounts that are no less skillful than those of their predecessors in how they experimented with panegyric and historiography, how they blended them to advance their views on imperial power and those who wielded it. This use of the praise-giving genre as a historiographical tool is particularly manifest in two adlocutiones or formal speeches to assemblies of soldiers that 2.  Eutrop. 10.18.3; Amm. 31.16.9; SHA Quad. Tyr. 15.10; MacCormack 1975: 152–53; G. Kelly 2007: 225–31; cf. den Boeft et al. 2018: 297–303. And yet, the Probus in the SHA largely reads as a panegyric. 3.  MacCormack 1975: 153 n. 70. 4.  See Vell. Pat. 2.94–131; Woodman 1984: 28–56. 5.  For Tacitus on the relationship between Agricola and Domitian, see Syme 1997: 23–26, 121–25. 6.  For a recent study on Herodian, see Kemezis 2014: 227–72, esp. 240 and 270–71. 7.  See Smith 2007. 8.  See Corke-Webster 2020.

Laudatiua Materia    105

Ammianus attributes to Julian as junior Augustus in books 20 and 21; in fact, scholars have already detected Ammianus’s use of Claudius Mamertinus’s panegyric of 362 in book 21, and praise discourse in general elsewhere.9 Greek and Roman historians often created the speeches that they assigned to actors within their narratives, but they typically did so according to methodological rules first laid down by Thucydides.10 One of the purposes of these speeches was to highlight and explain historical actors and events within their narratives in terms of motive and causation. Given the opportunity for (self-)praise and promotion that such speeches afforded, Julian’s adlocutiones in Ammianus’s History (Res gestae) provide useful comparanda for Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians, which he wrote with selfpromotion in mind and during the period in which these speeches are placed. As we have seen, Julian was well versed in the genre of imperial panegyric and produced three such speeches of praise while he himself was a wielder of a share of imperial power as Caesar. Ammianus, too, was well acquainted with encomium in general and with Julian’s works in particular, and these influenced his historiographical approach in narrating public events and motives during Constantius’s and Julian’s reigns,11 and afterward. As we shall see below, the speeches that Ammianus ascribes to Julian as junior Augustus serve as mini-panegyrics on his performance as Caesar in Gaul from 356 to 359 and as apologiae (defenses) for his actions at Paris that ended with his advancement to Augustan rank in early 360 contrary to Constantius’s wishes. The relationship between classical rhetoric and historiography and the subtleties of their connections have long been debated.12 Properly understood, according to A. J. Woodman, Antonius’s speech in Cicero’s influential De oratore (On the Orator) shows not that writing truthfully was the paramount task of an ancient historian but that it was secondary in importance to displaying rhetorical prowess.13 In short, concerns for truth—interpreted as “impartiality” and lack of “prejudice”—have been seen as subordinate to concerns for content (res) and style

9.  On book 21, see Galletier 1955: 9 n. 4; Sabbah 1978: 321–23; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 395 n. 14; and Garcίa Ruiz 2006b. For panegyrical elements elsewhere, see Galletier 1955: 9 n. 5; Gärtner 1968; and Caltabiano 1998; and n. 11 below. 10.  E.g., Fornara 1988: 142–68; Woodman 1988: 11–15; and Marincola 2017: lviii–lx. 11.  See Amm. 16.5.7, for a reference to Julian’s orations and letters; G. Kelly 2008: 255; Ross 2014, for an exposition of the influence of Julian’s panegyrics on Ammianus’s narration of the siege of Amida in 359; and Marcos 2015: 702, for the possible influence of Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians on Ammianus’s narration of Constantius’s campaigns on the Danube in 358–359. On Ammianus as a writer and his use of narrative, see Ross 2016b and 2018a. The text of Ammianus used throughout this chapter is from the standard edition of Seyfarth (1999); translations are my own. 12.  E.g., Wiseman 1979; Woodman 1988; Blockley 2001; Damon 2007; and Lendon 2009. See also Ross 2016a, for panegyric and history in Libanius’s Or. 59. 13.  Woodman 1988: 70–116.

106      Laudatiua Materia

(uerba).14 Perhaps we might employ a Hegelianism to illustrate the point here better: historical truth was overcome, but preserved or subsumed, by content and style. But was this actually the case? Other scholars have concluded otherwise.15 One of these has argued for accepting, in large part, what ancient historians thought they were doing (or rather what we think they thought they were doing), that is, telling true tales about the past.16 My own approach here tends to comport with this latter view, while allowing for the prominent influence of rhetoric in Ammianus’s historical narrative—so critical to how he shaped actors, events, and their receptions—which can shed some light on the “historical” element of that narrative. Ammianus was both a historian and a rhetorician. The vital function of narrative in historiography and panegyric is a less contentious topic.17 As Ammianus’s Res gestae makes clear, the relationship between panegyric and historiography was not only acknowledged but also avowedly regulated, as we shall see below. Therefore, panegyric can be used as a heuristic device in Julian’s and Ammianus’s texts to achieve a better understanding of their representations of Julian’s conduct, in addition to the historical “reality” of the events and motives that they narrate. This chapter explores imperial ideology/propaganda and the means and methods employed to communicate it during a period of transition in 360–361, when Julian Caesar transformed into Julian Augustus and initiated civil war, and then became sole emperor upon Constantius’s death. Here I focus on the inherent flexibility of imperial encomium as a genre and the various forms that it and its opposite, polemic, could take, such as historical narrative, adlocutio, or open letter. In the case of Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians, which was the result of his various efforts of the previous three years to shape his imperial profile independent of Constantius, the audience was not only Balkan and Eastern elites whose political backing he desired during civil conflict, but also posterity. The purpose and “audience” of Julian’s (auto-)panegyrical speeches in Ammianus’s History are less evident and more problematic, but I will argue that these speeches encode and transmit the junior Augustus’s political ideology during civil war, that 14.  Woodman 1988: 73: “Cicero contrasts truth (ueritas) with prejudice (gratia, amor), from which it appears to follow that Cicero saw the truth in terms of impartiality,” in his letter to Lucius Lucceius; see also 82–95. Cf. Tac. Ann. 1.1.3: sine ira et studio. What every historian, both ancient and modern, engages in is selectivity, without which historical narratives cannot be written. 15.  E.g., Blockley 2001: 24: “The point at issue is not whether ancient historians believed things that were false, or resorted to fabrications, or even that they were plagued by defective criteria for the evaluation of facts—all clearly occurred, often on a large scale, and still occur. The point is whether the ancient writers, listeners and readers of history accepted that it was a genre which of its nature admitted large-scale fabrication. I see nothing in the De oratore or in Ammianus which licenses this view”; and Lendon 2009. 16.  See Lendon 2009. 17.  See Rees 2010.

Laudatiua Materia    107

they serve as additional, posthumous supports for his legitimacy as emperor, and that they do so for Ammianus’s and Theodosius’s contemporaries and for posterity. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section examines Ammianus’s historical narrative of Julian’s acclamation at Paris in early 360 and his subsequent presentation of two speeches by Julian as an Augustus in books 20 and 21, reading them as panegyrical expositions.18 Such a reading is in line with Ammianus’s methods as a historian elsewhere in the Res gestae, with how in his narrative he presents historical actors and events with an eye to conveying and enhancing Julian’s legitimacy.19 In particular, Julian is shown consistently complying with Constantius’s directives and refusing power at Paris, and in so doing repeatedly reasserting his legitimacy as an emperor. Julian’s subsequent speeches support this portrait, since their focus is on promoting his public record as Caesar and defending his elevation as an Augustus; thus these speeches have a legitimizing function. The second section considers this legitimizing presentation of the emperor and traces it back to his Epistle to the Athenians, which advanced Julian’s imperial profile in the Balkans at the height of his civil war with Constantius and did so by combining (auto-)panegyric with apologia, polemic, autobiography, and epistolary writing to offer examples of how Constantius and Julian variously exercised imperial power and to what ends. Panegyric could be and was used to promote and to legitimize an emperor. R E S G E STA E : B E T W E E N H I S T O RY A N D PA N E G Y R IC

In Ammianus, imperial acclamation and the circumstances in which it takes place often reflects the influence or adoption of an “official story,” a public account in which legitimacy plays a significant part.20 And the advancement of a given subject’s legitimacy is a central feature and function of imperial panegyric. For example, in the Latin panegyric to Maximian and Constantine (7[6]) one of the aims of the panegyrist was to solidify Constantine’s claim to Augustan rank by his association with Maximian, who became his stepfather and Augustan guarantor of 18.  Amm. 20.4, 20.5.3–7, 21.5.2–8. 19.  E.g., Fournier 2010; Marcos 2015 and 2022; and Ross 2016b: 122–61. 20.  See G. Kelly 2013, for a useful comparandum in Ammianus’s description of Valentinian II’s acclamation as Augustus in November 375. Kelly 2013: 363, following McLynn 1994: 84 n. 20, sees Ammianus’s narration of the elevation of Valentinian II as the promotion of an “official story.” Ammianus emphasizes that Valentinian’s acclamation by a part of the army was legitimate, and this despite the fact that the latter had not held any prior office or area of responsibility, indeed he was only four years old. Such emphasis on Valentinian’s legitimacy has the effect, perhaps intentionally, of retroactively enhancing the legitimacy of Julian’s acclamation by comparison, for Julian was about twenty-nine years old and had been Caesar in the West for more than four years when his army elevated him to the rank of Augustus.

108      Laudatiua Materia

legitimacy in 307, a point to which we shall return below in connection with Julian.21 But there were other ways to convey legitimacy besides closely associating an imperial aspirant with an imperial predecessor, such as communicating military achievements and recusatio imperii (refusal of empire), which were important components of imperial encomium.22 In fact, Julian himself had displayed a form of recusatio in his panegyric on the empress Eusebia, as we have seen.23 Ammianus’s narration of Julian’s pronouncement at Paris, and the series of actions that led to it, offer an interesting case study of his historiographical approach to Julian; and, as we shall see below, it is tinged with panegyric. At the start of book 16, which commences with Julian’s residency at Vienne, where he had been received as Caesar in a kind of aduentus (arrival ceremony)— another component of imperial panegyric—Ammianus tells us that “whatever will be narrated [on Julian’s reign] will almost pertain to panegyrical material.”24 Ammianus’s mention of laudatiua materia (panegyrical material) is instructive, and we need to make a distinction here: he does not say laudatio (panegyric), nor does he use the adjective laudatiua alone, suggesting that his historical narrative of Julian’s reign will be almost a panegyric, in the interpretation of one commentator;25 rather he uses the expression laudatiua materia, indicating that the material, and thus the components of his narrative, will be nearly (paene) panegyrical in nature.26 In making this statement, Ammianus comes close to admitting that the Res gestae contains encomiastic elements, which are a key part of his historiographical

21.  As Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 187 have put it, “[The panegyrist] had to justify, or gloss over, usurpation. Upon the legitimacy of Maximian’s authority depended Constantine’s status.” Legitimacy is also a central feature in other panegyrics that address Constantine’s acclamation as Augustus after his father’s death in 306; Julian’s assumption of sole imperium upon the death of Constantius II; and Theodosius’s qualifications for holding imperial power (more below). 22.  See n. 35 below. 23.  Or. 2, 121C. 24.  Amm. 15.8.21, 16.1.1, for Julian’s aduentus and residency at Vienne; 16.1.3: quidquid autem narrabitur . . . ad laudatiuam paene materiam pertinebit. Cf. Pan. Lat. 2(12).47.6: a me fidem sumet historia; and n. 26 below. On aduentus, see MacCormack 1972 and 1990: 17–89, esp. 46. 25.  Fournier 2010: 17: “Ammianus concedes that he will write almost a panegyric of Julian.” I am drawing a distinction between what we see Ammianus doing and what he admits to doing; see n. 26 below. 26.  See de Jonge 1972: 5–6; and Amm. 16.12.16, for Ammianus’s similar use of materia: sedata iurgiorum materia. Ammianus deploys laudatiua only once in his extant History, but materia is used frequently; e.g., at 31.4.10: quorum insidiatrix auiditas materia malorum omnium fuit. Ross 2016b: 136 sees materia as “the type of events . . . commonly associated with panegyric,” such as “deeds in war.” I would include the presentation of these events and the lexicon employed in doing so to Ammianus’s meaning of materia. Cf. Rolfe 1950: 203 (ad 16.1.3): “Now whatever I shall tell . . . will almost belong to the domain of the panegyric” (emphasis added); and Rees 2010: 107: “Whatever will be narrated . . . will almost touch the realm of panegyric.”

Laudatiua Materia    109

method, especially in narrating Julian.27 And outside of Julian’s necrology (25.4)— itself a mini- but potent laudatio—these elements are nowhere more evident and more consistently applied than in Ammianus’s narration of Julian’s assumption of Augustan rank at Paris and his subsequent speeches. Given the closeness—and the tension—that Lucian implied between history and encomium, we can see that Ammianus nimbly walked on Lucian’s “great wall,” that he artfully skirted the line by offering praise to a long-dead emperor, by producing a panegyrical history. Thus laudatiua materia in the Res gestae implies a blending of history and panegyric, though not in equal parts. Refusing Power, Reasserting Legitimacy: Julian’s Pronouncement at Paris Of all the men shown accepting imperial power in Ammianus’s History—Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, Valens, Procopius, Gratian, and Valentinian II—Julian’s assumption of Augustan rank in Gaul is narrated in the greatest detail and with the greatest interest in dressing him in the garb of legitimacy. In early 360, Julian’s troops acclaimed him Augustus at Paris, an outcome that Julian himself had indirectly contributed to in some ways and that he ultimately accepted.28 Ammianus’s account of this event merits further scrutiny because of its complexity and subtlety, including its relationship to Julian’s own account in his Epistle to the Athenians (see the next section). The historian prefaces Julian’s acclamation with a description of Constantius as jealous and fearful of his Caesar’s military achievements and anxious over the possibility that these might increase and presumably overshadow him as senior emperor.29 When we consider that military achievements were a key component of an emperor’s legitimacy, we can see that Ammianus deployed Constantius’s reaction to Julian’s feats here not only to portray Constantius in a negative light generally, but also to show that Constantius was 27.  See Sabbah 1970: 597; and Fournier 2010: 20, for Ammianus’s approach possibly having been inspired by Lucian. 28.  Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 284C–D; Amm. 20.1.2, 20.4.13. For Julian accepting what others had done for him, see Drinkwater 1983: 370–83; and Matthews 2007: 93–99. Cf. Müller-Seidel 1955; Rosen 1969: 143– 46; Bowersock 1978: 46–54; and Potter 2014: 490–93, for Julian consciously preparing usurpation. In any case, Julian had learned from the exemplum of Gallus (see Blockley 1972a: 467; and G. Kelly 2008: 262). On the question of whether Julian’s usurpation was a special case, see Szidat 1997. On the ceremonial elevation of an Augustus, see Kolb 2001: 98–99. The soldiers could instigate or be instigated (see Birley 2011), or both. See also nn. 54, 66, 74, and 91 below; and map 2. 29.  Amm. 20.4.1–2; cf. Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 282C; Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.5–6; Eunap. Fr. 14.1, 20.5 (Blockley). Drinkwater 1983: 375–77, 383–87 sees Constantius concerned about the political shortfall for him that Julian’s victories would have produced by comparison and sees this concern behind Constantius’s redeployment orders for Julian’s troops. This view tallies with how Constantius treated his generals, how he skillfully constrained them so that their military successes could not outshine his own and so threaten him politically (see Blockley 1980; and nn. 86 and 91 below).

110      Laudatiua Materia

particularly concerned about Julian impinging on his own imperial credentials and legitimacy. In my view, Ammianus’s comments at 20.4.1–2 also allude to the kind of fear that Tiberius had of Germanicus in 14 CE.30 There are no verbal echoes; so this allusion is not lexical but thematic.31 When Germanicus is offered the empire by his Rhine legions after the death of Caesar Augustus, he steadfastly refuses their offer out of loyalty to Tiberius.32 This Tacitean portrayal of Germanicus’s steadfast recusatio imperii and his declaration of loyalty to his uncle and superior in Gaul is panegyrical, and it sheds some light on Ammianus’s presentation of Julian’s own consistent displays of recusatio and loyalty to his elder cousin, since Ammianus was well versed in Tacitus.33 To be sure, there are some notable differences between these two portrayals, such as the contexts, in which we see one displaying recusatio during the period when the position of the presumptive emperor was somewhat uncertain after the death of his long-lived predecessor, and the other after redeployment orders have been issued by a well-established and still-living emperor. However, all the essential elements are there in both Tacitus and Ammianus—namely, the strained relationships between imperial superiors and their subordinates and blood relations that present the possibility of usurpation, the reasonable complaints on the part of the soldiers that underlie their rebellious moods and provide support for this possibility, and the loyalty to their superiors that two young Caesars and subordinates consistently exhibit in word and deed. As has been observed in a classic article on the refusal of power, recusatio was a formal ceremony by which a candidate seeking to become emperor rejected that desire publicly and ironically, and so demonstrated his suitability and legitimacy for the office.34 And this ceremony is an

30.  See Tac. Ann. 1.7.6: causa praecipua ex formidine, ne Germanicus, in cuius manu tot legiones, immensa sociorum auxilia, mirus apud populum fauor, habere imperium quam exspectare mallet. The sentiment here perfectly describes the kind of fear that Ammianus implies on the part of Constantius at 20.4.1. Although Ammianus makes no explicit comparisons of Constantius and Tiberius, and Julian and Germanicus, these relationships (and concerns) seem to rest just below the surface when Ammianus narrates Constantius’s and Julian’s interactions. For Tacitean influence on Ammianus, see Blockley 1973. For Tacitus’s narrative of the mutinies under Germanicus and Drusus having inspired Ammianus’s portrayal of mutinies under Julian, see M. F. Williams 1997. For Ammianus’s intertextual relationship with Tac. Ann. 1.61.2–3, see G. Kelly 2008: 16–18, 20–21, and 264 (Ammianus’s reference to Germanicus at 22.14.8). 31.  See G. Kelly 2008: 198–221, who identifies seven types of allusion in Ammianus, of which “exemplary” is one. 32.  Tac. Ann. 1.34.1: Sed Germanicus quanto summae spei propior, tanto impensius pro Tiberio niti; 1.35.3–4. 33.  See nn. 30 and 32 above. 34.  Béranger 1948. See also Béranger 1953: 137–69; Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 36–44, esp. 36–37; Huttner 2004; and Birley 2011.

Laudatiua Materia    111

important element of Latin panegyric.35 Thus, Germanicus’s consistent recusatio and loyalty to Tiberius imbue Germanicus with greater legitimacy, while also revealing a component of Tacitus’s historiographical approach, whether Germanicus actually engaged in recusatio or not. Germanicus had been the presumptive heir of Tiberius in accordance with the will of Caesar Augustus, who was Germanicus’s blood relative through the latter’s mother, Antonia. In Ammianus’s History, Julian is the heir de facto of Constantius because there is no other male member of the dynasty to succeed the senior and childless emperor;36 but the Caesar’s military achievements in Gaul also qualify him for higher rank and enhance his legitimacy.37 In fact, Ammianus refers to Julian’s military successes and their dynastic and political implications at the very start of 20.4 by noting that they disturbed Constantius, who then issued redeployment orders for a substantial part of the Gallic army.38 Germanicus’s standing with his soldiers and the general populace, we are told, had affected Tiberius similarly.39 Ammianus goes on to define Julian’s uirtutes (“military achievements”) succinctly: Alamannic domains were subdued and cities in Gaul were recovered, while the barbarians in turn were made tributaries and subjects of the Roman state.40 When Ammianus states that “certain dominions of the Alamanni were laid low and Gallic towns were retaken,”41 he is emphasizing Julian’s record as a general in books 16–18, in which domains of the Alamanni (regna Alamanniae) are consistently the Caesar’s targets, and his victories against them underscore both his military objectives and his effectiveness as a commander, in contrast to Constantius.42 Ammianus’s overall portrayal of Julian’s record as Caesar in Gaul,43 and his reference to Julian’s successes against Alamannic regna in particular, add to the latter’s posthumous legitimacy, especially when 35.  Pan. Lat. 7(6).11.5–6, 6(7).8.4, 2(12).11.1–12.1; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 23. 36.  This status is also apparent on Constantius’s and Julian’s “spes reipublice” coinage, where Julian as Caesar seems to be alluded to as Constantius’s heir (see Kent 1981: 40). In fact, as Kent has observed, this series continued to be minted and used throughout Julian’s tenure as Caesar up to Constantius’s death, which, in my view, would therefore indicate that Julian was being advertised as Constantius’s heir when the latter had no other male relative to succeed him. 37.  E.g., note the panegyrist’s (7[6].4.2–4) talking up of Constantine’s quite limited record of military accomplishments in 307 in order to highlight him as a legitimate successor of his father, Constantius. 38.  See n. 29 above and nn. 86 and 91 below. 39.  See Tac. Ann. 1.7, 35. 40.  Amm. 20.4.1; see den Boeft et al. 1987: 54–56. On Julian’s Gallic wars, see Marcos 2015 and Heather 2020. 41.  Amm. 20.4.1: Alamanniae quaedam regna prostrata receptaque oppida Gallicana. Cf. Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.5: Iulianus Alamanniam domuit, Iulianus urbes Galliae ex fauilis et cineribus excitauit. 42.  See Marcos 2015. 43.  See Amm. 16.4.4: efficacissimus Caesar.

112      Laudatiua Materia

we consider that Ammianus mentions Julian’s achievements here at the very start of 20.4, where he sets the stage for Julian’s pronouncement at Paris. An emperor’s public record on “the frontier” was directly connected with his legitimacy;44 indeed, in the Panegyrici Latini we find emperors’ activities on the Rhine, Danube, and Euphrates being showcased as prerequisites for or a foundation of their imperium (power).45 And Julian is constantly shown outdoing Constantius in this regard. That the Caesar possessed greater legitimacy than his Augustus is implied in the consistent attention that Ammianus gives to Julian’s martial exploits and program of hard power on the Rhine frontier—exploits and the kind of program, we should note, that Constantius is said to have lacked46—and in Julian’s subsequent recusatio, which is made under conditions created by an emperor who is presented as concerned about how his own handling of imperial power in the East is perceived alongside his colleague’s actions in the West. Like Tacitus in his description of Tiberius’s (apparently unfounded) fear of Germanicus, Ammianus disapproves of such envy and its deleterious effect on imperial collegiality on the part of a superior who is seen as having no reason to question the motives and loyalty of his subordinate. All this underscores one of Ammianus’s key messages at 20.4: had Constantius not wrongly issued redeployment instructions for the Gallic troops, there would have been no pronouncement at Paris in 360. Furthermore, as outlined by Ammianus at 20.4, the long sequence of events and Julian’s reactions to them are suggestive of encomium. Most notably, Constantius’s tribune and secretary, Decentius, arrives at Paris with departure orders for Julian’s Gallic troops and begins their implementation without any interference from the Caesar;47 Julian is disturbed and concerned about what should be done regarding his remaining troops not yet ordered eastward;48 after some prudent deliberation on his own, since he lacked the advice of his general Lupicinus and his prefect Florentius (both absent), Julian then begins to support Constantius’s orders by summoning all his troops from winter quarters and expediting their depar-

44.  Goffart 1981: 280–81; Guzmán Armario 2006: 38, 42–43, 54, 56, 57–59; Marcos 2015. 45.  Pan. Lat. 10(2).2.5–6, 6.1, 11(3).4.1, 5.1–4, 8(4).1.4, 2.1, 7(6).4.2–4, 6(7).3.3, 3(11).3.1, 4.3, 4.5–6, 6.1–3. Note that the panegyrists place the military exploits of their respective emperors near the beginning of their panegyrics and thus underscore such exploits, among others, as serving a legitimizing function for those holding imperial power at the outsets of their reigns. See Men. Rhet. 2.372.25–2.375.6 (2.1.19–27 Race), for the importance given to outlining an emperor’s military accomplishments and activities and near the beginning of a panegyric. 46.  See Marcos 2015. 47.  Amm. 20.4.2–5. 48.  Amm. 20.4.6: sollicitus Caesar . . . uarias curas animum uersans. Ammianus’s language here evokes the anxiety and concern that he attributed to Julian before the battle of Argentoratum (quae anxie ferebat sollicitus Caesar, 16.12.6) because Barbatio had withdrawn his forces and returned to Constantius’s court in Italy (16.11.15), and so it evokes the gravity of the moment.

Laudatiua Materia    113

ture.49 A mysterious and inflammatory leaflet is subsequently floated in the camp of the Petulantes and reported to the Caesar,50 who acknowledges that the complaints it contains are valid, but continues to expedite the departure of his troops, makes provision for them to take their families with them, which is no small favor,51 and reminds them of Constantius’s rightful power (potestas);52 Julian next invites some of his officers who are departing for the East to have dinner with him at Paris so that he can treat them and thus their units “more honorably” (honoratius);53 soon after, the Caesar’s soldiers, their minds having been excited (incitatisque animis), revolt and acclaim him Augustus, not in sight of the emperor but while he is secluded in the palace/military headquarters (see map 2).54 Julian then appears but with firm resolution continually resists (mente fundata . . . resistebat) what his soldiers have done,55 offers a formal recusatio, and promises to speak with Constantius on their behalf;56 however, Julian’s soldiers show greater persistence and compel him to accept promotion (Caesar assentire coactus est).57 Finally, Julian is so distressed by the acclamation that he forsakes wearing the diadem (a torque) that one of his soldiers had placed on his head, going out in public, and conducting any pressing business,58 because, we are told, he was thoroughly terrified (perterritus),59 until he is forced to reappear by his distressed soldiers.60 This narrative, in common with praise discourse, frequently displays and elicits emotional responses—Julian’s anxiety over the implementation of the redeployment 49.  Amm. 20.4.6–9; PLRE 1.520–21, Lupicinus 6. 50.  Amm. 20.4.10: famosum . . . libellum. See also map 2. 51.  Amm. 20.4.11: cum familiis; see den Boeft et al. 1987: 77–78, for Julian’s granting his soldiers’ families use of public conveyance to the East as a special privilege. 52.  Amm. 20.4.12. 53.  Amm. 20.4.13; cf. Zos. 3.9.1–2. For the implications of this dinner, see Bowersock 1978: 49–51; and Tomlin 1980: 269. 54.  Amm. 20.4.14. Interestingly, Ammianus does not specify the subjects of erupere and conuertuntur, and so leaves the agents behind the revolt unclear. The nearest subject is the officers (proceribus, 20.4.13), but omnes petiuerunt palatium et spatiis eius ambitis implies the officers and soldiers in general. Such language obscures the fact that these officers first incited their men and then that they all together surrounded Julian’s military headquarters on the Seine, the very order of events that Zosimus (3.9.1–2) and Zonaras (13.10.11) relate. Cf. Amm. 26.6.12–13. 55.  Amm. 20.4.15. 56.  Amm. 20.4.15–16. 57.  Amm. 20.4.17–18, at 17; cf. Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 284C–D, Ep. 8 Wright (26 Bidez) 414B. 58.  Amm. 20.4.19: nec diadema gestauit nec procedere ausus est usquam nec agere seria, quae nimis urgebant; cf. 20.4.18. See fig. 3, for an image of Julian wearing a diadem for the first time. The investiture of Procopius in 365 offers an instructive contrast (see Amm. 26.6.14–16). 59.  Amm. 20.4.20. 60.  Amm. 20.4.20–22. Note the concordance in Julian’s subsequent letter to Constantius about the pronouncement, where the soldiers’ rushing of the palace and forcibly acclaiming Julian Augustus and the latter’s concealment there out of fear are repeated and so emphasized (20.8.8–10).

114      Laudatiua Materia

orders, his concern over the separation of his soldiers from their families, avoided only by his personal intervention, his regard for his officers, his firm resistance and then acquiescence to Augustan promotion by his excited soldiers, his fearful seclusion in the palace, and his compulsory reappearance before his troops—that reveal the narrative’s emotional function.61 Indeed, one passage in particular illustrates both the emotional and the performative function of Ammianus’s narrative, and so its theatricality: And this man [Julian] with a firm resolution was resisting one and all, at one moment presenting himself to be indignant [at what they had done], at another moment holding out his hands and both imploring and upbraiding [them], that after many very blessed victories nothing dishonorable should be done and that untimely impulsiveness and error should not produce material for discord.62

Moreover, the images presented here do not comport with a willing usurper;63 time and again, in word and deed, Julian is depicted by Ammianus as refusing an acclamation being foisted on him, a refusal that serves to present him as a legitimate candidate for Augustan rank consistent with the genre of praise-giving. Undoubtedly, what happened at Paris in early 360 was a delicate subject, for, in early 362, the Latin panegyrist Claudius Mamertinus would avoid Julian’s pronouncement there altogether, although he obliquely refers to Constantius’s redeployment instructions, the apparent catalyst for the acclamation, by relating potential consequences for Gaul’s security.64 Mamertinus also glosses over the fact that Julian was subsequently at war with Constantius, noting quite strikingly that Julian simply crossed into Illyricum from Alamannia, where he had campaigned very successfully.65 Conversely, Ammianus structured his entire section at 20.4 very precisely around how Julian acted properly throughout the whole affair, leading up to and including the pronouncement. He likely sought to remedy the glossing over of Julian’s acclamation by Mamertinus and to elaborate on the simple statement in the short history (Breuiarium) of Eutropius that Julian was made Augustus consensu

61.  See Rees 2010: 115–18, for narrative’s emotional function. 62.  Amm. 20.4.15: Et ille mente fundata uniuersis resistebat et singulis nunc indignari semet ostendens, nunc manus tendens oransque et obsecrans, ne post multas felicissimasque uictorias agatur aliquid indecorum neue intempestiua temeritas et prolapsio discordiarum materias excitaret. For Ammianus’s use of theatrical metaphors elsewhere, see Jenkins 1987. 63.  Cf. n. 1 above. 64.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).5.2. 65.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).6.1–2. Cf. MacCormack 1975: 162–63; Seager 1984: 156 and n. 23. Libanius (Or. 18, 111–16) would be more forthcoming. For more on Mamertinus’s panegyric, see chapter 4.

Laudatiua Materia    115

militum (by the agreement of the soldiers),66 while also offering an account of this affair compatible with Libanius’s funeral oration on Julian (Or. 18) and with Eunapius’s History as well.67 As the account is presented by Ammianus in terms of cause and effect, the reader is left wondering how Julian’s actions end with his pronouncement. Not only does Ammianus seemingly relate all the actions leading up to it and immediately afterward in strict chronological order, but he also presents Julian in such a way that the entire text at 20.4, as a unit, functions as a recusatio imperii for the newly elevated Augustus, in addition to the formal recusatio by Julian that is included within it (20.4.16). Further, this text is saturated with various kinds of recusatio, in both word and deed, to the point where it offers theatrical scenes of varying intensity, which frequently find a place in Latin panegyric:68 we see Julian refusing to interfere with Decentius’s preparations;69 humbly and persistently seeking the counsel of the praetorian prefect of Gaul, Florentius, and being rebuffed by him, even though Julian has threatened to abdicate his authority as Caesar altogether;70 refusing to address the potentially volatile leaflet;71 displaying recusatio proper outside the palace and before the army;72 and refusing to show his person or speak to anyone after the acclamation,73 until a decurion of the palace runs into the

66.  Eutrop. 10.15.1: consensu militum Iulianus factus Augustus est. On legitimate imperial promotion emanating from and beginning with the army, see Straub 1972: 36–63. On consensus militum as a fundamental component of Tetrarchic and Constantinian acclamation ceremonial, see Hebblewhite 2017: 142–47. See also Bleckmann 2020: 111–15. 67.  See Lib. Or. 18, 90–103. We lack, presumably, Eunapius’s sections from his History on Julian’s pronouncement at Paris. For Ammianus’s use of Libanius’ Or. 18, see Sabbah 1978: 258–59; and Ross 2016b: 177. For Ammianus’s use of the “first edition” of Eunapius’s History (ca. 380), see Barnes 1978: 114–23; G. Kelly 2008: 78; and A. Cameron 2011: 677. 68.  E.g., note the theatrical scene presented by one of Constantine’s panegyrists, who relates that Constantine had engaged in recusatio to the point where the emperor spurred his horse on in a bid to escape from his soldiers while they were in the very act of promoting him (Pan. Lat. 6[7].8.4). Note also Tacitus’s panegyrical account of Germanicus, in which Germanicus displays recusatio to the point where he threatens to commit suicide before an assembly of soldiers rather than accept their offer of empire (Ann. 1.35.4–5). See MacCormack 1990: 8–10, for panegyric as “theater” and the emperor as “player.” 69.  Amm. 20.4.4. 70.  Amm. 20.4.8. On proiceret insignia principatus, see den Boeft et al. 1987: 71. Cf. Amm. 21.16.11– 12; G. Kelly 2005: 413–15, for Ammianus’s implied and deft comparison of Julian with Marcus Aurelius, specifically regarding Marcus’s willingness to abdicate, to affirm Julian’s legitimacy: “The implied logic is that Marcus’ willingness to renounce empire made him worthy to hold it; Constantius’ determination to preserve his power at all costs made him unworthy of it” (414). 71.  Amm. 20.4.11. 72.  Amm. 20.4.16. 73.  Amm. 20.4.19–20.

116      Laudatiua Materia

camps of the Petulantes and Celts screaming that Julian has been killed,74 which draws soldiers into the palace demanding to see the new Augustus.75 All this has the cumulative effect of making Julian’s formal recusatio appear more credible to the reader. After all, Julian had been consistent throughout. We find Julian operating during these events in such a way that everything he says and does is the least likely to result in a revolt and acclamation by his army.76 This observation has a direct bearing on Julian’s legitimacy as junior Augustus, one who had wielded his authority as Caesar properly in accordance with the directives of his superior and who still managed to be promoted to Augustan rank by his soldiers, a promotion that accordingly comes off as his reward for his handling of Constantius’s commands. From first to last, Julian’s conduct is presented as exemplary, as that of an obedient and faithful subordinate,77 not unlike Germanicus right after Caesar Augustus’s death and not unlike the Caesars Constantius I and Galerius, who obeyed their own Augustan superiors, Maximian and Diocletian, respectively, during the so-called First Tetrarchy.78 Indeed, Galerius’s respect for and deference to Diocletian became proverbial under Constantius II and his Caesars, for Constantius apparently used Galerius as an exemplum when attempting to convince Gallus Caesar to obey his summons in 354,79 which Gallus ultimately did; and later, in 360/1, we find Aurelius Victor drawing comparisons between Julian and Tiberius and Galerius as subordinates of emperors, undoubtedly as a warning, in part, to the very successful Caesar.80 Ammianus takes pains to show Julian’s behavior at Paris in 360 as correct and befitting a faithful Caesar. The series of events culminating in Julian’s acclamation begins with his dutiful response to the redeployment instructions that Constantius’s officer Decentius had brought to Paris and thus with the Caesar’s deference to 74.  Amm. 20.4.20; cf. Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 285B–C. It seems to have gone unnoticed that the Petulantes are the military unit in which the libellus is circulated (20.4.10) and the unit to which the palace decurion goes to announce the false story that Julian is dead. In both cases, it seems that the Petulantes are targeted as the unit to agitate in order to produce a desired result. If so, one suspects that the palace decurion may have been the author or disseminator of the libellus, perhaps with Julian’s knowledge. See also map 2. 75.  Amm. 20.4.21–22. 76.  See also den Boeft et al. 1987: 78–80, who focus on the opaque role of Decentius in selecting Paris as the city through which Julian’s soldiers would march, and conclude that “Amm. wants to emphasize that Julian had nothing to do with the usurpation and subtly forces this opinion upon his readers” (80). 77.  See also Amm. 20.8.6, where Julian refers to himself as apparitor fidus; and n. 218 below. 78.  On the First Tetrarchy and its ideology and relationships under Diocletian, see Kolb 2001: 25– 58; and now Waldron 2022: 70–114. Cf. n. 93 below. 79.  See chapter 1, n. 197. 80.  Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.19: Quod adeo praestat, ut Tiberius Galeriusque subiecti aliis egregia pleraque, suo autem ductu atque auspicio minus paria experti sint; see Nixon 1991: 121–22; and Bird 1996: 870–71.

Laudatiua Materia    117

his senior colleague, a response that Ammianus is keen to emphasize at the outset: “Julian had submitted and kept quiet during these events, yielding all things to the judgment of the more powerful man [Constantius].”81 But Julian breaks his silence in a bid to sway the tribune from removing recruits that Julian had enlisted from beyond the Rhine—Germans—with promises that they would never be required to serve beyond the Alps.82 He also complains about the potential chilling effect their removal would have on future recruitment for the Gallic army.83 The Caesar still comes off well, however, since his objections depict him as prudent and an honest broker. In a letter to Florentius attempting to convince him to leave Vienne and come to Paris, Julian even expresses alarm at how he would be held responsible for the destruction of the Gallic provinces.84 Ultimately, the Caesar is shown weighing two pressing concerns: “On the one hand barbarian ferocity burdened [him], on the other the authority of the orders.”85 When read closely, this statement provides insights into the public characters and motives of Constantius and Julian during this consequential period. According to Ammianus, the underlying—and credible—motive for the Augustus’s redeployment instructions was not military but political in nature: “The military achievements of Julian were disturbing . . . Constantius.”86 On the other hand, the authority of Constantius’s orders burdened Julian.87 That is, Julian’s recognition of Constantius’s authority over him is what governed his conduct and actions, which again stresses the Caesar’s loyalty and contributes to viewing his subsequent recusatio as credible.

81.  Amm. 20.4.4: Conticuit hisque acquieuerat Iulianus, potioris arbitrio cuncta concedens. In Ammianus, potior often means “the more powerful” (e.g., 15.7.10, 15.8.16, 16.12.17). In the context of troop redeployments ordered by Constantius and carried out by his tribune, “the more powerful” one here clearly refers to the emperor (see den Boeft et al. 1987: 61–62, for potior referring to Constantius, and 63, for Constantius’s directives at 20.4.5). In fact, potioris arbitrio seems to be an echo of Libanius’s reference to Constantius: βουλὴ . . . τῷ κρείττονι (Or. 18, 97). Moreover, in Ammianus, arbitrium is typically reserved for emperors, and so denotes their authority. But arbitrium is also reserved for divinity: in his speech as an Augustus at 21.5.3, we find Julian invoking arbitrio dei caelestis. And such language evokes the legitimacy of Julian’s promotion to Caesar in late 355, when Constantius, also in a speech, is made to say that he would invest him nutu dei caelestis (15.8.10). 82.  Amm. 20.4.4; see Tomlin 1980: 267–68. 83.  Amm. 20.4.4. 84.  Amm. 20.4.8. 85.  Amm. 20.4.6: [eum] hinc barbara feritas, inde iussorum urgueret auctoritas. 86.  Amm. 20.4.1: Constantium . . . urebant Iuliani uirtutes. Ammianus portrays Constantius’s possible use of Julian’s troops for a Persian war as a “cover” or “pretext” (hac specie, 20.4.2) for the redeployments. On the political aspect here, see Drinkwater 1983: 383–87. Cf. Matthews 2007: 94–95. Constantius may have genuinely believed that he needed reinforcements on the Eastern frontier, but it does not follow that these had to come from Gaul, since there was a substantial and closer force in Thrace (Lib. Or. 18, 116; Amm. 21.12.22). See also n. 29 above and n. 91 below. 87.  Amm. 20.4.6.

118      Laudatiua Materia

figure 3 . Julian II. Lyon, siliqua, 360–361 CE. Obverse: FL CL IVLIANVS P P AVG, with the emperor wearing a diadem. Reverse: VICTORIA DD NN AVG. RIC 8.193.212. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group. Electronic Auction 468, Lot 574, 20 May 2020.

The Caesar’s apprehensions about the consequences for frontier security along the Rhine also speak to his legitimacy and his worthiness to hold Augustan rank, and so anticipate the acclamation. Further, Ammianus’s presentation of Julian, of his behavior and activities throughout these events and their ultimate outcome, exhibits all four cardinal virtues (though they are not explicitly listed), which are the hallmarks of Latin panegyric,88 including Claudius Mamertinus’s panegyric to Julian.89 Temperance, fortitude, justice, and wisdom—all of which Ammianus explicitly attributes to Julian in his necrology (25.4.1)—are on display at 20.4 in scenes in which Julian faces off against the orders of his Augustus (iussa Augusti): restraint or temperance in reacting to Constantius’s directives; fortitude in facing his obligation to accept them; justice in advocating for the interests of soldier and provincial but in ultimately showing deference to his Augustan superior; and wisdom in not obstructing Constantius’s orders, and even in facilitating their execution. 88.  Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 23. 89.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).5.4–5. See also Pan. Lat. 11(3).19.2, for Maximian’s possession of fortitudo, continentia, iustitia, and sapientia, as well as pietas and felicitas; and 7(6).3.4–5.3, where Constantine is shown in possession of all four cardinal virtues in a long section. These references to Maximian’s and Constantine’s possession of virtues occur in panegyrics delivered at the outset of their reigns, when they would have needed to display their virtues among their qualifications for the imperial office. Note also Pan. Lat. 2(12).7.1, for Pacatus’s explicit reference to Theodosius’s virtues as qualifications for holding imperial power. All these remarks project the view that the emperors above possessed the necessary qualifications for the imperial office prior to being invested formally. This appears to be Ammianus’s intention at 20.4: to show Julian in possession of the four cardinal virtues in the lead-up to his pronouncement at Paris so as to buttress the rightness of the pronouncement.

Laudatiua Materia    119

In the days immediately following his pronouncement, Julian seized control of the Gallic mints and so control of a key medium of imperial messaging there for the first time (fig. 3). He also sought recognition of his new rank from the now senior Augustus and turned to diplomacy through letters in the hopes that he could be accepted as junior Augustus of the West.90 But both the pronouncement and the subsequent civil war, it seems, were inevitable, for too many forces were at play.91 In any case, in his angry response to Julian’s letter initiating negotiations, Constantius is shown as anything but capable of reason and prudence.92 This is in contrast to Galerius, who had managed to recognize Constantine as a new Caesar in late 306, and so as a legitimate member of the imperial college. It seems that Constantine had first been granted imperial power (imperium) by his dying father and his father’s army at Eburacum (York) on 25 July 306, but under circumstances that were ambiguous and that would have fueled charges of usurpation. There is even confusion among our literary sources as to which rank Constantine had been promoted first: Augustus or Caesar.93 Regardless of whether he was an Augustus or a Caesar first, Constantine succeeded in transforming himself from a usurper into an emperor through Galerius’s recognition and his own methods and media, one of which was panegyric.94 Julian was not as successful in his negotiations as Constantine, at least not until just before Constantius died on 3 November 361, when the latter finally granted Julian greater legitimacy by apparently naming him his heir.95 Perhaps Julian, who would have known more about Constantine’s elevation in 306 than we do, even had his 90.  Amm. 20.8–9. See also Sabbah 1978: 135–36, 197–98, 298, for Ammianus’s use of these letters as documentary evidence. 91.  Matthews 2007: 93–94, 98–99; Heather 2020: 87–95; cf. Blockley 1980, for the political system in which Constantius and his magistri operated. There were opposing pressure groups in Gallic soldiers, bureaucrats, and provincials, all of whom increasingly supported their resident Caesar, who was victorious but limited in his authority, and in state bureaucrats and palace officials of the distant Augustus, whose positions depended on the security of their patron’s prestige and own position. These two groupings were increasingly at odds with one another, and they both influenced and reflected Constantius’s and Julian’s progressively divergent political agendas. Bleckmann (2020) seems to be unaware of these pressure groups and so oversimplifies the acclamation at Paris in early 360 by repeatedly referring to it as Julian’s “self-elevation.” 92.  Amm. 20.9, cf. 20.4.16: Augustum capacem rationis et prudentissimum. 93.  For Constantine’s and Galerius’s negotiations and compromise on Constantine’s imperial rank, see Leadbetter 2009: 165–67; Barnes 1981: 27–29 and 2014: 63–64; and Wienand 2012a: 119–27. If Lactantius is to be believed, Constantine was first promoted to Augustus (DMP 24.8–9, 25.5). But the author of the Origo Constantini Imperatoris records that Constantine was elected Caesar by his father’s army (Origo 4). Eutropius’s account reflects ambiguity: Constantinus . . . in Britannia creatus est imperator (10.2.2); cf. Pan. Lat. 7(6).5.3, 6(7).2.4–3.1. 94.  See Leadbetter 1998; Humphries 2008; Wienand 2012a: 119–33; Börm 2015: 246–51; and n. 93 above. 95.  Amm. 21.15.2, 5; cf. Pan. Lat. 3(11).27.4. See also n. 1 above.

120      Laudatiua Materia

uncle’s promotion and subsequent negotiations in mind as models for his own.96 Both emperors are shown to have acted appropriately by those who wrote the histories of their reigns, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Ammianus, and both these historians and rhetoricians employed similar means and methods in doing so. One distinct difference between Constantine’s and Julian’s recorded elevations, however, is that the latter delivered adlocutiones afterward.97 Speaking the Language of Legitimacy: The Adlocutio as Apologia and Laudatio In Ammianus’s Res gestae, imperial adlocutiones before assemblies of soldiers convey the public characters and policies of the speakers;98 and these addresses, which are presented in direct speech (oratio recta), encode official ideology and conceptions of how imperial power should be wielded and by whom. In fact, G. Sabbah has detected an official panegyric and an official communiqué in Ammianus’s explanation of imperial policy on the Danube in 358 in his opening and closing remarks in one section, and in the lead-up to one of Constantius’s speeches in another.99 If so, we should not be surprised, since such usage is consistent with what Ammianus told us about his laudatiua materia above. While one was delivered by an emperor and the other to him, both adlocutio and laudatio shared similar goals in fostering loyalty to the emperor, representing imperial power positively, illustrating the public personalities exercising that power, and encoding and transmitting emperors’ political ideologies.100 Compared to other adlocutiones— actual and purported—Julian’s addresses to his troops are unique, in that they are unusually apologetic and (auto-)panegyrical, and they even refer to the judgment of posterity.101 As I will argue, we should see these addresses as neatly crafted mini96.  See Amm. 20.8.17, where Julian in a public “letter” to Constantius appears to be alluding to the early Tetrarchs, perhaps even to Constantine and Galerius. 97.  Eusebius (VC 1.21–22) claims that Constantine conversed with his father just before the latter died and subsequently presided over the latter’s funeral, two notable settings and opportunities for speeches, especially since they signaled (or triggered) Constantine’s assumption of imperial power. 98.  On the adlocutio during the principate and the later empire, see Campbell 1984: 69–88; and Hebblewhite 2017: 150–59, respectively. On speeches and imperial characterization in Ammianus, see O’Brien 2002, 2013a, and 2013b. On Constantius’s and Julian’s speeches conveying their public characters and policies, see Marcos 2015. 99.  See Sabbah 1978: 209, 325–26 and n. 20; Marcos 2015: 697, 699–700. 100.  On the purpose of the adlocutio, see Campbell 1984: 69–72, 87–88. On laudatio, see, e.g., MacCormack 1990, Nixon and Rodgers 2015, and Rees 2002. 101.  Cf. ILS 2487, 9133–35; Campbell 1984: 77–80, for Hadrian’s speeches to military units in Africa; Hdn. 7.8.4–8, for Maximinus’s speech to his troops before attempting to march on Rome; and Amm. 14.7.13–14 and 26.7.16, for speeches by Gallus Caesar in 354 and Procopius in 365, respectively, that were made in contexts not altogether unlike Julian’s in 361. For Julian’s other addresses in Ammianus’s text along with those of Constantius, see n. 98 above. On speeches and historiography, see n. 10 above.

Laudatiua Materia    121

panegyrics embedded by the historian and rhetorician for the purpose of posthumously legitimizing the junior Augustus undertaking civil war. Immediately after narrating Julian’s pronouncement at Paris, Ammianus presents us with an adlocutio by Julian, his first as an Augustus.102 In his exordium, the emperor begins by acknowledging the predicament in which he and his soldiers find themselves in following the acclamation: “The difficult situation demands and implores [us], loyal and brave defenders of me and the state . . . so that just and cautious remedies can be brought together for this thoroughly changed situation.”103 These references to a “difficult situation” (res ardua) and a “thoroughly changed situation” (permutata res) are rather vague, though Julian is referring to his acclamation and the direct challenge it presented to Constantius, who insisted on holding Augustan authority alone. More defined is that Julian Augustus associates his very person with the Roman state and describes his soldiers as his “defenders” (propugnatores), a designation that casts them as not only guardians of his physical person and legitimate rights, but also as the proper distributors of his new rank.104 Indeed, in his address, Julian states that they had raised him to the highest summit of all—the rank of Augustus—by means of their strong judgment.105 He reminds his men that he was scarcely a fully grown man when he arrived in Gaul as Caesar but that he was entrusted to their care by heavenly will,106 and all the while he has lived rightly and joined them in all their labors, which is an apologetic statement.107 Prominent among these labors are, of course, their joint military 102.  Amm. 20.5.3–7. 103.  Amm. 20.5.3: Res ardua poscit et flagitat, propugnatores mei reique publicae fortes et fidi . . . ut remedia permutatae rei iusta colligantur et cauta; see den Boeft et al. 1987: 117–18. 104.  Ammianus elsewhere refers to Roman soldiers as propugnatores (e.g., 19.2.9, 19.6.6, 19.7.2, 20.6.2, 20.6.7), and even Constantius is described as such (19.12.17). But by using propugnatores to describe Julian’s soldiers here, Ammianus may be linking them to divine authority through the god of war, who is depicted as Mars Propugnator on Constantine’s coinage from Trier at the very start of his reign ca. 307 (RIC 6.170.59, 171.60–64, 212.730–32, 218.775–79). Since the early panegyrics on Constantine show a tendency to play up his limited military victories as qualifications for the imperial office in 307 (see n. 37 above), this coinage bearing Mars may have been intended to do much the same. Ammianus’s description thus would appear to imbue Julian’s soldiers with greater authority in promoting him to Augustus and to support what follows: quoniam Caesarem uestrum firmo iudicio ad potestatum omnium columen sustulistis (20.5.3). See also 20.9.7: ut prouincialis et miles et rei publicae decreuit auctoritas; Rosen 1969: 128–32; and n. 130 below. 105.  Amm. 20.5.3. 106.  Amm. 20.5.4: uestrae tutelae nutu caelesti commissus. Cf. 15.8.10, where Constantius prefaces Julian’s promotion to Caesar with nutu dei caelestis; and Pan. Lat. 7(6).14.1: caelestique nutu. Given the other points of contact with this panegyric to Maximian and Constantine, Ammianus may have used it in his History. For Ammianus’s uses of other panegyrics, see Sabbah 1978: 321–46. 107.  Amm. 20.5.4: numquam a proposito recte uiuendi deiectus sum uobiscum in omni labore perspicuus. See den Boeft et al. 1987: 120, for the view that numquam a proposito recte uiuendi deiectus sum refers to Julian’s loyalty toward Constantius.

122      Laudatiua Materia

exploits against the formerly unconquered Alamanni, whom they expelled from Gaul with a loss of strength,108 leading up to the battle of Argentoratum (Strasbourg) and, according to Julian, that most blessed day that in a certain way brought perpetual liberty to Gaul.109 Julian then tells us about this, how he himself had been rushing about amid the most densely packed hurling of spears and how his soldiers secured themselves by means of their strength and stamina and hurried on the enemy like a torrent.110 Notably, the junior Augustus (or Ammianus) refrains from making any dynastic claim to higher rank,111 instead stressing his heavenly support, his uirtus, and the strong approval he received from his soldiers, and so emphasizing these criteria as the bases of his legitimacy as an Augustus. The eulogistic language and imagery above serve not only as self-promotion for Julian, but also as a kind of encomium on the Roman soldier by whose service the Caesar had gained his victories. To be sure, this section of Julian’s speech functions as a eulogy for his fallen soldiers, whose funeral rites are said to have been filled with frequent praise for what they achieved in life rather than grief because of their death.112 This is followed by an invocation of the judgment of history (and not for the last time) with regard to the living, that posterity will not be silent regarding their services to the state, which are already fully known among all nations.113 However, Julian makes this statement based on two conditions: posterity will reward his soldiers if, by means of their valor and seriousness, they defend him whom they have fitted with a higher peak of dignity, if any adversity should assail him.114 These conditions suggest that the emperor was already considering the prospects of civil war. Having praised his military record and that of his soldiers, Julian ends his speech with a political promise of promotions to high offices free from corruption and in keeping with merit.115 In terms of common themes, this speech is quite Caesarean, especially when we consider its references to victories by a commander and his soldiers and the appeal of the former to the latter as his defenders. When crafting Julian’s speech, Ammianus may well have had in mind 108.  Amm. 20.5.4. 109.  Amm. 20.5.5. See also map 1; and fig. 3, for Julian’s promotion of Victoria, which presumably alludes to Argentoratum, as does VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANI (fig. 4). For a concise and incisive reconstruction of the battle, see Potter 2014: 489–90. 110.  Amm. 20.5.5. 111.  Ammianus has Julian claim that he was “clothed in purple” (purpuratus) but without saying that it was Constantius who bestowed it on him (20.5.4). The unnamed agent could be taken to have been the army. 112.  Amm. 20.5.5. 113.  Amm. 20.5.6; cf. Pan. Lat. 3(11).31.1. 114.  Amm. 20.5.6: si eum, quem altiore fastigio maiestatis ornastis, uirtute grauitateque, si quid aduersum ingruerit, defendatis. 115.  Amm. 20.5.7. See also Sabbah 1978: 323 and n. 6, for the panegyrical theme here; and Pan. Lat. 3(11). 25.4–5.

Laudatiua Materia    123

the well-known speech of Julius Caesar in Gaul, in which Caesar appealed to his soldiers for aid and thus began civil war.116 Without ever naming Constantius, the address above reveals a tension between Julian’s need to demonstrate that he had been loyal to Constantius and followed his instructions as Caesar in Gaul, and so held imperium legitimately, and his dire and valid need to protect himself and assert his rights to Augustan authority by appealing to his soldiers. When all its political messages are considered, this speech lays the groundwork for Julian’s march eastward against Constantius, a process that the junior Augustus completes later with a second adlocutio. After failing to obtain recognition of his Augustan rank, Julian prepared for a preemptive strike against Constantius in early 361.117 A part of his preparations consisted of a second adlocutio to the Gallic army,118 whose support for a march against his cousin Julian needed to secure. As with Julian’s earlier speeches, Ammianus seems to have constructed this one for the emperor as well; however, since he had interviewed well-placed figures such as Julian’s head chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi) in Gaul, Eutherius, for his History,119 some of the content of Julian’s speeches may have a claim to historicity.120 The junior Augustus’s address in book 21 is interesting in that, like his previous speech in book 20, it functions as a minipanegyric and an apologia for his actions as Caesar and for those of his soldiers in Gaul; its focus is on conveying and enhancing his legitimacy. Indeed, in his exordium, Julian tells his soldiers that it is fitting for a general to have no other thoughts except for those things that can be praised and approved,121 a statement that is meant to testify to his noble motives. And immediately following this speech, Ammianus compares it to the pronouncement of an oracle because of its effect on Julian’s soldiers in their increased willingness to join him in revolution against Constantius, while also praising Julian’s military record on the Rhine frontier.122 Julian begins this address by invoking the judgment of a nameless heavenly god, who is always connected with imperial power in panegyrics,123 and by 116.  Cf. Caes. BC 1.7.7: hortatur, cuius imperatoris ductu VIIII annis rem publicam felicissime gesserint plurimaque proelia secunda fecerint, omnem Galliam Germaniamque pacauerint, ut eius existimationem dignitatemque ab inimicis defendant. 117.  Amm. 20.9, 21.1.1, 21.8. 118.  Amm. 21.5.2–8. 119.  See Amm. 16.7; Sabbah 1978: 228–30; Matthews 2007: 25, 100–101. 120.  Cf. Lib. Or. 18, 53, who mentions Julian’s pre-battle speech at Argentoratum, which Ammianus purports to preserve (16.12.9–12). Libanius refers to this speech as a logos. Perhaps Julian himself embedded it within his commentary on the battle. On this speech in Ammianus, see Marcos 2015: 683–84. 121.  Amm. 21.5.2. 122.  Amm. 21.5.9. 123.  Amm. 21.5.3: Arbitrio dei caelestis. On expressions of divinity in the Latin panegyrics, see Béranger 1970 and Rodgers 1986. See also Amm. 16.12.18, where a standard-bearer invokes the superum numen in remarks to Julian before the battle of Argentoratum; and n. 106 above.

124      Laudatiua Materia

reminding his soldiers of his arrival in Gaul as a youth, immediately moving on to his effectiveness as Caesar in breaking the unchecked incursions of Alamanni and Franks and their license for destruction there.124 This theme of a youthful but successful junior emperor is one that Ammianus (or Julian) had already touched upon in his previous speech, and his continued reference to it here serves to emphasize Julian’s military credentials for holding imperium. Julian is then made to state that, by means of their common strength, he has made the Rhine thoroughly passable for Roman troops whenever it is agreeable to them,125 that is, whenever they desire to take the fight to the enemy in their territories. At the outset of this address, Julian focuses on his military exploits and the benefits that his wielding of imperial power has provided; he highlights his leadership: “I have broken,” “I have made” (fregi, feci). But his soldiers are yoked to his success; he and they have joined together in common cause, thus Julian’s reference to them in the very first line of this speech as “mighty fellow-soldiers” (magni commilitones); he has relied without a doubt on the support of their valor.126 Consequently, it is no surprise that we next see Ammianus’s Julian shift from the first-person singular to the plural, to “we,” to the joint labors of emperor and soldiers;127 and the result of these jointly executed labors is nothing less than a Gaul reborn.128 All these messages convey Julian’s unique relationship with the Gallic army, and their camaraderie is deployed here to support his acclamation further. As in his speech in book 20, the junior Augustus is made to take a longer view, beyond his reign, and to strike a panegyrical tone here by saying that Gaul will commend their military achievements to posterity through the multitude of ages.129 In his speech in book 21, Julian recalls and stresses his recusatio at Paris while apparently selflegitimizing his possession of Augustan rank further by vesting his soldiers retroactively with the authority to elevate him,130 an authority that could be implied in the earlier speech but is not explicitly stated there as it is here.131 In his recusatio proper, Julian had exhorted his soldiers to restrain their anger and described their acclamation of him as Augustus as the incitement of revolution against Constantius,132 thus implying that the latter alone and not the army had the author124.  Amm. 21.5.3. 125.  Amm. 21.5.3. 126.  Amm. 21.5.2–3. See also fig. 4, for Julian’s advertisement of the valor (VIRTVS) of his soldiers. On imperial uirtus in the third century, see Manders 2012: 169–78. 127.  Amm. 21.5.4; cf. 20.5.4. 128.  Amm. 21.5.4: Galliae . . . recreatae. 129.  Amm. 21.5.4. 130.  Amm. 21.5.5: at nunc cum auctoritate uestri iudicii rerumque necessitate compulsus ad Augustum elatus sum culmen. 131.  Amm. 20.5.3: firmo iudicio. Cf. den Boeft et al. 1991: 56–57. 132.  Amm. 20.4.16.

Laudatiua Materia    125

ity to make such a promotion. Julian may not have believed that, but it would have strengthened his public recusatio. Julian’s remark regarding his soldiers’ authority above would have convinced both him and his men of the rightness of the pronouncement and empowered them before openly opposing Constantius; however, it is clearly deployed by Ammianus in his narrative as the beginning of an apologia for Julian’s actions as Caesar. Such a defense is further evident in Julian’s subsequent invocation of the soldiers’ favor along with that of the unnamed heavenly god as the prerequisites that need to be met before he can move against his Augustan rival.133 To solidify that earthly support, in the same breath Julian reminds his army about his good administration of Gaul as Caesar, that he has been highly successful in the field as their general against the combined strength of many foreign nations, and that he then, just as now, did not undertake any grand design without due consideration.134 Therefore, the soldiers are subtly told that they can expect similar success now against Constantius because Julian is approaching the coming conflict in the same manner. As we have seen, Julian’s speeches as junior Augustus offer panegyrical material that posthumously reinforces his legitimacy, so much so that we can see them as panegyrical and historical epitomes of his tenure as Caesar. Who would have been the “audience” for such speeches, in addition to the panegyrical presentation of Julian’s conduct at Paris in early 360?135 Besides posterity, for whom Ammianus certainly wrote, the audience may have been the emperor Theodosius and members of his court, who were well versed in the language of legitimacy and under whom Julian’s reputation apparently suffered.136 If so, Ammianus offered an innovative, potent, and subtle riposte, for the notable and detailed presentation of Julian’s (proper) conduct at Paris and the substance of his addresses also can be seen as means by which to cast some doubt on the legitimacy of his successors, including Theodosius.137 As Ammianus’s Julian consistently stresses his public 133.  Amm. 21.5.5. 134.  Amm. 21.5.5; cf. Marcos 2015: 686–87. 135.  See Frakes 2000, for civil administrators as the “intended audience” of Ammianus’s work overall. Cf. G. Kelly 2008: 153, 181–82, who rightly sees the concept of an “audience” for Ammianus’s History as problematic and limiting. 136.  E.g., Them. Or. 14, 182B, for Theodosius’s claim to the purple resting on his strength and bravery; and Pan. Lat. 2(12).11.1–12.1, for his display of recusatio imperii. For Julian’s name being impolitic at the time of Themistius’s Or. 34 (dated to 384/5), see Brauch 1993: 42–43. Theodosius likely found Julian’s military reputation irksome, and undoubtedly viewed Julian’s vigorous support for traditional cult as distasteful. For Ammianus publishing his work under Theodosius ca. 390, see Matthews 2007: 22–27; and G. Kelly 2008: 8. 137.  See n. 20 above. Sivan 1996 has exposed the opaque and problematic nature of Theodosius’s accession at Sirmium and his legitimacy, which partly depended on his presumed military merit and minor success against Sarmatians in late 378. For Ammianus’s subtle criticism of Theodosius elsewhere,

126      Laudatiua Materia

record as a successful general on the Rhine frontier and a fair administrator, his strong relationship with his soldiers from the time of his arrival in Gaul as a young man, his rightful elevation to Augustan rank, his connection with divinity, and the judgment of posterity should be read as laudatio and apologia embedded here in the form of adlocutio by the historian and rhetorician. This focus also pays Julian an additional compliment because it depicts him, credibly, as a rational and prudent actor in preparing to undertake civil war. The Augustus in Gaul then ends his speech by cautioning his men to abstain from plundering their fellow citizens as they move eastward against Constantius, emphasizing that their ultimate goal has been and still is the security and safety of the provinces.138 C O N F R O N T I N G C O N STA N T I U S : T H E E P I ST L E A S A P O L O G Y, P O L E M IC , AU T O B IO G R A P H Y, A N D AU T O - PA N E G Y R IC

The self-glorification that Julian ventured on in 358/9 did not end with his battle commentary on Argentoratum and his second oration on Constantius (see chapter 2), nor with his conceivably historical adlocutiones to his troops as recorded by Ammianus. Sometime in mid-361, Julian and a contingent of his Gallic army advanced rapidly into Illyricum and seized Sirmium,139 a vital imperial military base, administrative center, and residence. After Sirmium, he subsequently based himself and his forces at Naissus, where he wrote epistles to Athens, Corinth, Sparta, and the Senate of Rome to defend his assumption of Augustan rank at Paris and his movement against Constantius.140 Julian was finally managing his public image and his narrative. From Naissus Julian also controlled the West and most of Illyricum, and he had a foothold in Thrace at the Pass of Succi, which lay southeast from Serdica (Sofia) and which the emperor prudently fortified with a strong see Sabbah 1978: 190 (19.11.7), 327–32 (16.10), 365 n. 72 (31.4.4); and G. Kelly 2008: 8, 13–19, 24–28, 99, 283, and 320 (books 26 and 31). On the possible influence of Pacatus’s panegyric on Ammianus, see Sabbah 1978: 323–27. If Ammianus did indeed read this panegyric while writing the Res gestae, he took the opportunity to criticize some of its claims about Theodosius indirectly. 138.  Amm. 21.5.8: indemnitas prouinciarum et salus. For indemnitas as security of property, see den Boeft et al. 1991: 63. 139.  Lib. Or. 18, 111–12; Amm. 21.9.6–8; Szidat 1975. On Julian’s march through and activities in the Balkans in 361, see Marcos 2019a and 2022. 140.  See Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 287C; Lib. Or. 12, 64; Amm. 21.10.5–7; Zos. 3.10.3–4; Thompson 1943: 93–95. Contrary to what Elm 2012: 64, 75, states, Julian apparently did not write a letter to the Senate of Constantinople as he had for that of Rome, which is worth considering (see Athanassiadi 1992: 84–85). Elm 2012: 82–83 takes Julian’s Epistle to Themistius as such a letter because of Themistius’s position as a chief senator of Constantinople. But this letter is addressed to Themistius alone and makes no references or allusions to Constantius or to a state of civil war. In short, the Epistle to Themistius belongs to another context.

Laudatiua Materia    127

force, since much of Thrace was still under the control of Constantius and he expected a counteroffensive from that region.141 In this light, Julian’s epistolae or open letters are best seen as part of a public relations offensive geared to win over the communities and territories that he did not occupy. With the exception of the Senate of Rome, Julian sent epistles to cities in areas that were not under his direct control, that is, the southern sector of the praetorian prefecture of Illyricum, and he may have sent other letters of which we are unaware. From this point forward until Constantius’s death (3 November 361), the conflict between Julian and Constantius became, in large part, a war of words and one in which several literary genres played roles. Sometime ca. May 361, when Julian seized Sirmium or was on the verge of seizing it, Constantius declared him a “public enemy,”142 a declaration that may have partly motivated Julian to respond with several public letters throughout Greece that put forth who the real enemy of the state was. This war of words in 361 was also largely one-sided, for we have no response from Constantius,143 which partly explains the prevalence of Julian’s perspective on this conflict in literary sources. Of Julian’s public letters, his Epistle to the Athenians alone has survived completely intact.144 Julian produced this remarkable imperial “letter” to advance his bid for supreme power during his civil war with Constantius, when he transformed himself from a faithful Caesar and subordinate (apparitor) to a rival Augustus.145 In this context, the Epistle to the Athenians is an informative pronouncement that illustrates Julian’s political ideology/propaganda during a period of imperial transition, a written apologia, as Libanius calls it,146 that the emperor used to consolidate his claim to Augustan rank and authority and to promote his legitimacy in holding that power, in the process undermining the authority and legitimacy of Constantius in the eyes of the public.147 While he challenged Constantius by force 141.  Amm. 21.10.2; cf. Amm. 21.12.22, 21.13.6; Lib. Or. 12, 65. For a discussion of Julian’s objectives and concerns in Thrace, see Thompson 1943: 90–93. Julian’s control of the West was not complete, however; see n. 149 below. 142.  See Jul. Ep. ad Iul. (9 Wright, 28 Bidez) 382C: πολέμιος; Elm 2012: 56, 62, for Julian having been declared hostis publicus. 143.  In 360, Constantius had responded to Julian’s “letter” explaining his acclamation at Paris (Amm. 20.9.4–6); but Constantius’s response was apparently just a directive (edicti) commanding Julian to renounce his Augustan rank (20.9.6; see den Boeft et al. 1987: 229). 144.  We have a fragment of his Epistle to the Corinthians; see n. 147 below. 145.  For studies on this Epistle, see Caltabiano 1974; Labriola 1972, 1975; and 1991–92; and Humphries 2012. See also Elm 2012: 61–63, 75–80, who notes how Julian’s letter to the Athenians functions as an apologetikos logos and how he uses autobiography to legitimize his actions against Constantius. On Julian as a faithful subordinate, see n. 218 below. 146.  Lib. Or. 18, 115: ἀπολογίαν ἐν γράμμασι. 147.  See Labriola 1975: 8, 17–18, who suggested that Julian revised and published his Epistle to the Athenians during his stay at Antioch in early 363. This may very well be true, for Libanius apparently

128      Laudatiua Materia

of arms and undercut him in writing, Julian nonetheless never sought to delegitimize Constantius completely because his own legitimacy as an emperor was partially based on his having been promoted to the rank of Caesar by him. And yet, by appealing to the subjects of his rival through open letters, Julian was including Roman citizens and provincials among those who could grant (or confirm) degrees of imperial authority and legitimacy.148 In fact, Julian’s (lost) missive to Rome should be viewed in tandem with the revolt against him at Aquileia; in addition to being seen requesting approval from the Senate there, it may be that Julian sought to consolidate his authority throughout Italy and to prevent any (other) upheaval in the West.149 As for Athens, Julian had studied there, and it seems that this Greek city with its rich history was dear to him, as presumably was its approval for his actions.150 Indeed, in 355/6, Julian spoke highly of Athens and particularly noted that the city had paid Constantine a signal honor by granting him the title “General of the Athenians,”151 an honor that Julian may have wished for himself and that may partly account for his subsequent outlining of his successful military record in his Epistle to the Athenians. More importantly, Athens was one of the largest cities in Greece and a significant Eastern center for trade and commerce, and so, as Julian tells us, he hoped to use Athens to disseminate his messages throughout the Greek world.152 His motive in sending a missive to Sparta is less clear, but publicly displaying his reverence for the city and its history to regional elites in order to build support in the Peloponnese would have been a prime reason. That Corinth also received an epistle from Julian is especially notable when we consider that this was did obtain a copy of it by this time (see Ross 2020a: 249 and n. 36). Libanius tells us elsewhere that Julian dispatched explanatory letters to cities throughout Greece and that he had tailored the length and thus the contents of each letter in accordance with its particular recipient (Or. 12, 64). For example, in the sole fragment that survives of his Epistle to the Corinthians, we find Julian uniquely invoking his father’s honored residency at Corinth as part of a highly personal appeal. Libanius quotes from this letter and states that Julian called the Corinthians his benefactors, apparently because of their support for his father, which led Julian to claim a special relationship with Corinth and so to ask for its support during civil war (Or. 14, 29–30). The power behind such an appeal would have been all the stronger if Julian also discussed the murder of his father and relatives at Constantius’s hands, as in the Epistle to the Athenians. 148.  Cf. Jul. Or. 1, 8A–B; Amm. 20.9.7. 149.  Ammianus first mentions the Senate’s reception of Julian’s letter at Rome (21.10.7) and then discusses the revolt at Aquileia (21.11–12), but this need not indicate the actual order of events. That Julian wrote to the Senate of Rome, presumably in Latin, must reflect an interest in openly communicating his traditional reverence for that body—a reverence he would also visibly show for its counterpart in Constantinople as sole emperor—while also seeking to consolidate his hold on Italy, which Rome was still critical to. 150.  See Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 273D, 275A–B; Amm. 15.2.8. 151.  Jul. Or. 1, 8C–D, at 8C: στρατηγὸς ἐκείνων [Ἀθηναίων]. 152.  Ep. ad Athen. 270B.

Laudatiua Materia    129

another populous city and the typical seat of the proconsul of Achaia, and so was the most important imperial administrative center in Greece. By writing to Corinth, Julian was likely targeting Constantius’s proconsul in the hopes of bringing him to his side, an effort in which Julian appears to have been successful.153 Indeed, we have a short letter from Julian to a Maximinus, an agent of his at the port of Cenchreae, southwest of Corinth on the Saronic Gulf, in which he mentions the proconsul of Achaia (though not by name) and strongly implies that he has his backing;154 whoever this proconsul was, he may have been sympathetic and open to Julian’s persuasion.155 Such a high-level defection to the junior Augustus would have facilitated that of many other powerful officeholders in the region, all of whom thus would have conveyed that Julian was worthy of political support and therefore that he was a legitimate emperor. In fact, in addition to Illyricum, which Julian controlled directly, both Macedonia and Greece, we are told, declared for him, apparently after he had engaged in his epistolary and public relations offensive from Naissus.156 What Libanius asserts may be supported by Julian’s gold coin issues (solidi) from the mint at Thessalonica with the legend promoting the valor of the Roman army (VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANI), that is, the Western army; these have been dated to as early as summer 361 (fig. 4).157 If so, they illustrate Julian’s control of Thessalonica and its surrounding territory while Constantius was alive. A generation earlier, in late 324, Constantine had disseminated ideology/propaganda against his rival Licinius in the form of a “letter” to the Eastern provinces but after Licinius’s deposition and perhaps after his execution, a letter that was probably crafted as ex post facto justification for the second and final civil war between the two emperors and brothers-in-law.158 In 361, this epistle would have 153.  See Lib. Or. 18, 113–14. 154.  Jul. Ep. ad Maximin. (73 Wright, 19 Bidez): ὁ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡγούμενος; PLRE 1.576, Maximinus 4. The tone and substance of Julian’s letter to Maximinus, particularly where the emperor directs that his agent not engage in bribery (ἀδωροδοκήτως) but that he act to secure a fleet of ships quickly (ταχέως), support placing it in the context of civil war with Constantius. See also Bidez 1924: 10–11. 155.  See PLRE 1.612–13, Musonius 1 and 1.1014, Anonymous 49. Musonius may have been proconsul in late 361; and he apparently had a good relationship with Himerius, which could indicate that he was a fellow Hellene. Musonius also seems to have known Libanius. 156.  Lib. Or. 18, 113–16. It is possible that the memory of the dead empress Eusebia, who was from Thessalonica, played some role in Macedonia and Greece joining Julian, if true. She had shown Julian favor, which Julian advertises several times in his Epistle to the Athenians (273A, 274A, 274B, 275B). 157.  See Kent 1959: 113, and 1981: 45–46, 422. 158.  Euseb. VC 2.23–43. It is significant that Constantine does not mention Licinius by name once in this letter, a silence that suggests his condemnation of Licinius and deconstruction of his legitimacy. Thus, not surprisingly, not even their dynastic connection through Constantine’s sister is alluded to; Licinius is simply made into an unnamed wicked tyrant who needed to be overthrown (2.26.2–28.1). Constantine also makes some short autobiographical references that are meant to signal that his triumph over Licinius was a foregone conclusion (2.28.2–29.1).

130      Laudatiua Materia

figure 4 . Julian II. Thessalonica, solidus, summer 361–363 CE. Obverse: FL CL IVLIANVS P P AVG. Reverse: VIRTVS EXERVCITVS [sic] ROMANI. RIC 8.422.218. Courtesy of Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Object number 18268163.

stood as a relatively recent and perhaps conspicuous example of imperial ideology/propaganda during (or after) civil war. What was Julian’s inspiration for his information campaign against his cousin and brother-in-law Constantius? Did he draw from his uncle Constantine’s communication against Licinius, or did he have a more distant historical example in mind, such as that of Octavian against Antony?159 Or was Julian’s public relations offensive a product of his own genius? Perhaps it was a combination of all these. Deconstructing Constantius, Validating Julian I. Labriola has studied the autobiographical quality of Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians, in which he comes off as a wronged man who is worthy of greater power,160 while another scholar more recently has considered this communication an exposition of good and bad emperorship in its depiction of Constantius as a tyrant,161 an exposition I will explore further. Both have recognized that legitimization is a central aim of this “letter.” However, scholars have not appreciated how Julian experimented with panegyric, alongside polemic, apology, autobiography, and epistolary writing, to achieve this aim, and in order to draw a distinction with Constantius; if the latter was a bad and willful tyrant, then Julian was a good and reluctant king/

159.  See Cass. Dio 50.1–6. 160.  Labriola 1975. 161.  Humphries 2012.

Laudatiua Materia    131

emperor.162 As a genre, autobiography was a narrative type and strategy well suited to advancing the imperial image and agenda for posterity, Caesar Augustus’s Res gestae being one example, which also can be read as self-praise and panegyric. But a closer parallel to Julian’s epistles or open letters is the ideology/propaganda that Constantine circulated against each of his rivals—Maxentius and Licinius—in turn, whereby he constructed his own legitimacy while also deconstructing theirs.163 Panegyric was typically used to praise and legitimize emperors and their undertakings; but it was also occasionally inverted and exploited to criticize and delegitimize them.164 While Julian focuses his rhetorical skill in his Epistle to the Athenians on deconstructing Constantius as a good emperor, it seems to have gone unnoticed that he also uses his Epistle to build on his self-presentation in his oration on Eusebia and especially in his second panegyric on Constantius, which offers a “manifesto” or political program of proper rule by the good king/emperor.165 This program of what constitutes a good king—that is, one who concentrates on dispensing justice and exercises his power justly,166 who leads the army well and successfully,167 who refrains from cruelty and despises civil war, though when it is thrust upon him sees it through to the end in prudent fashion,168 among other things—can be read as an implicit critique of Constantius as a legitimate emperor; in fact, this critique lies at the very heart of the Epistle to the Athenians, as we shall see below. Thus Julian seems to invite intertextual readings of his Epistle that blur the boundaries between panegyric, polemic, autobiography, and apology as narrative types and strategies. In so doing, he presents listeners/readers of his Epistle with an autobiography, auto-panegyric, and apologia of himself as a good king/ emperor and a biography, anti-panegyric, and indictment of Constantius as a bad and therefore a false one, a portrayal that Gregory of Nazianzus would challenge later by embedding a kind of mini-panegyric and apologia of Constantius in his first invective against Julian (which blurs its own boundaries).169 Here I use the 162.  Cf. Humphries 2012: 84–86. For a similar contrast, see Pan. Lat. 12(9).3.5–7, which lambastes Maxentius as a tyrant while praising Constantine as a good ruler in 313; and Omissi 2018: 103–52. 163.  See Humphries 2008. 164.  See Humphries 1998, for Hilary of Poitiers’s “anti-panegyric” of Constantius. 165.  Jul. Or. 3, 86A–92C; see chapter 2. 166.  Or. 3, 88C–89D. 167.  Or. 3, 87D–88B. 168.  Or. 3, 86A–C. 169.  Greg. Naz. Or. 4, 34–42, 45. Gregory showcases what he sees as Constantius’s Christian credentials (Or. 4, 34, 37–38). More importantly, he tells us that Constantius treated Gallus and Julian properly and with honor (39–40), a portrayal that suggests that Gregory had read the Epistle to the Athenians and felt the need to offer this rebuttal. Indeed, whereas Constantius fares poorly in his wars with the Persians in Julian’s letter (271A), Gregory compares Constantius to Alexander of Macedon (Or. 4, 41); however, Gregory makes clemency the basis for the comparison and not military prowess, which suggests that he conceded Julian’s point. The best that Gregory could do was to assert that Constantius

132      Laudatiua Materia

term “auto-panegyric” to describe Julian’s act of self-praise while utilizing components of panegyric and autobiography in his Epistle to the Athenians. For example, Julian begins his Epistle by first outlining his ancestry, followed by an account of his boyhood and upbringing,170 the traditional themes and starting places for an imperial panegyric (basilikos logos), before eventually going on to advertise his military achievements on the Rhine frontier in some detail.171 The autobiographical and panegyrical components of Julian’s Epistle are manifest when the emperor presents his movements from Gaul to Illyricum as swift and energetic.172 Such self-promotion advertises Julian’s feat of wresting control of most of Illyricum from Constantius and suggests that his swiftness and energy in doing so could be expected to continue; by contrast, it implies that Constantius was slow and lacked energy, since he was caught off guard by Julian’s advance. Moreover, as we shall see below, Julian focuses on offering five justifications or proofs for his undertaking civil war that are consistent with panegyrical material, three of which Ammianus would adopt and concentrate on: (1) Constantius’s responsibility for the massacre of his and Julian’s relatives in 337, the act of a tyrant; (2) Constantius’s consequent relationships with Gallus and Julian, how he treated them during their upbringing, in the lead-up to their promotions to Caesar, and after; (3) Julian’s superior military credentials as Caesar, and Constantius’s related insecurity, which ultimately led to Julian’s acclamation by the Gallic army; (4) Julian’s proper conduct prior to, during, and after the pronouncement at Paris (including his recusatio imperii), and so his rightful elevation to the rank of Augustus; and (5) Constantius’s subsequent inability to reconcile with him as a fellow Augustus. In keeping with praise discourse, Julian informs the Athenians about his ancestors, who are well known to them.173 But Julian just as quickly subverts this into an anti-panegyric of Constantius when he presents his first justification for war, when he asserts that his cousin was responsible for the death of nine of their close relatives, who included Julian’s father and uncle, both of whom were uncles of Constantius;174 that is, the branch of the imperial family descended from Constantius I and his wife, Theodora. Julian himself (and his half brother Gallus) emanated from this branch, and his opposition to Constantius in 361 can be read partly as his desire to avenge the past. Though he does not refer to him by name, Julian is kept the barbarians from surrounding Roman forces and that he suppressed some usurpers (34). See also Elm 2012: 371–73. 170.  Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 270C–272A. Julian even offers a kind of mini-panegyric on Athens (268A– 270A). On praise of Athens in Julian’s epistle, see Labriola 1991–92. 171.  Ep. ad Athen. 278D–280D; more below. 172.  Ep. ad Athen. 269D. The swiftness of an emperor’s advance is a topos of panegyric; see Maguinness 1932: 54–56; MacCormack 1972: 727 n. 38; den Boeft et al. 1991: 122; and Marcos 2022. 173.  Ep. ad Athen. 270C. 174.  Ep. ad Athen. 270C–D.

Laudatiua Materia    133

including his cousin Dalmatius, who had been a legitimate Caesar and successor of Constantine and whom some soldiers killed at the behest of Constantius in summer 337.175 One wonders how the Caesar Dalmatius was remembered afterward in the Balkans, the region that he had controlled in his allotment of empire. Dalmatius had been popular with the Roman military, and his posthumous reputation may have been such that some were willing to lend their support to Julian against the man responsible for his death.176 However, Dalmatius had ruled the Balkans for less than two years, and so probably did not have time to make a widespread and lasting impression on the inhabitants of this region. Thus it would be better to see Julian presenting Constantius as having subverted the legitimate succession plans of his father, and so deftly deflecting any charges of usurpation that Constantius made against him, messages that would have resonated with the educated elite in the prefecture of Illyricum. In fact, audience response figures prominently in the rhetorical strategy that underlies Julian’s Epistle, as in his orations on Constantius and Eusebia. By publicly presenting Constantius as a tyrant, Julian deconstructs and delegitimizes him to a great degree; moreover, by portraying him as a usurper since summer 337, the charge of usurpation against Julian neatly recoils upon its subject. Regardless of public opinion on this matter, Constantius could only have come off poorly; if guilty of murdering members of the imperial family in 337, then a tyrant, and if not guilty, then a powerless emperor who could not control his soldiers, and so one who lacked their recognition of his authority. This was the figurative box in which Julian placed Constantius, and its construction can be traced back to his circulated first oration, in which the panegyrist-Caesar claimed that his Augustus had kept Constantinople free from civil discord and yet could not prevent others from causing dissension,177 and in which he had offered veiled criticism while signaling praise. Now, Julian recalibrated that approach to deconstruct Constantius while also validating himself. In this light, Julian’s subsequent assertion that, following his acclamation at Paris, adherents of Constantius (Konstantiou philoi) bribed some of his soldiers in a bid to remove him looks like an attempted repeat performance of what had happened in 337,178 as it was no doubt intended to appear. Of course, all this has implications for Julian’s own claim to imperial power because he had been elevated to the Caesarship by Constantius in late 355. But Julian rests his legitimacy as an emperor not only on his having been promoted to Caesar by his cousin, a position and status that he still stresses often, but also on 175.  See Burgess 2008 and Marcos 2014. 176.  Eutropius, who wrote his Breuiarium ca. 369, thought highly of Dalmatius (10.9.1), and it may be that others did as well at the time when Julian engaged in his public relations offensive in late 361. For Dalmatius’s career as Caesar and his popularity with the Roman army, see Marcos 2014. 177.  Jul. Or. 1, 17A. 178.  Ep. ad Athen. 285A–B. See also n. 237 below.

134      Laudatiua Materia

the fact that his branch of the dynasty also derived from Constantius I.179 This approach illustrates that Julian’s delegitimization of Constantius went only so far and that his primary concern was to present himself as the better emperor. Indeed, Julian implicitly advertises himself as Constantius’s opposite: he had not killed any of his relatives, and far from his soldiers not recognizing his authority, they enhanced it at Paris in early 360 (more below). Although we have no testimony regarding the reception of this open letter from the people of Athens, questions regarding the legitimacy of Julian’s acclamation as Augustus would largely have been made moot, if not nullified, by his charges of murder against Constantius.180 This would help to explain why these charges are given somewhat more space and so more emphasis in the text than his recusatio at Paris.181 Furthermore, Julian prefaces his charges with an ironical description of Constantius as “the most humane emperor” for how he treated those who were closest to him by blood,182 which is ironical not only because of the outline of the dynastic murders that follows, but also for its probable reference to Constantius’s philanthropia as advertised energetically and publicly by Themistius. This section of Julian’s Epistle is notable for its emphasis on the fact that the relatives whom Constantius put to death did not receive a trial beforehand but were quickly condemned and executed, which conveys Julian’s interest in proper legal procedure or at least in the appearance of it. Julian casts this dark dynastic chapter as a “tragedy,”183 and it undoubtedly served his interests to advertise that his slain relatives had been denied their due process,184 which consequently paints Constantius’s actions as extralegal and tyrannical; but it also reflects well on Julian, who thus promotes himself as a virtuous emperor who is focused on law and justice by implicit contrast. In fact, Julian positions himself within the text as someone who is challeng179.  Ep. ad Athen. 270C, 277A, 280C, 281D, 285D, 286C. See Ando 2000: 33–40; and Börm 2015, for dynastic legitimacy and the by now well-established principle of succession. 180.  The well-known response of the Senate of Rome to Julian’s letter to it as recorded by Ammianus comes to mind here: auctori tuo reuerentiam rogamus (21.10.7). But we do not know what Julian’s missive to this body said in its entirety, or if and how it differed in any respects from his Epistle to the Athenians. Regardless of whatever claims Julian had made in his epistle to them, senators of Rome would have felt obliged to Constantius, who had visited Rome and honored the Senate in 357. In any case, their response may have been exceptional. 181.  See Ep. ad Athen. 270C–271B, 281B, for references to Constantius’s murders of his relatives in 337 and of Gallus in 354. See 283A, 284C–D, for Julian’s recusatio at Paris, which is a secondary consideration. 182.  Ep. ad Athen. 270C (Bidez): ὁ φιλανθρωπότατος οὗτος βασιλεὺς. See also 273B, for another caustic description of Constantius: ὁ . . . καλὸς Κωνστάντιος; cf. Or. 1, 30D: ὁ καλός (Vetranio), Ep. (14 Wright, 31 Bidez) 373D: Προαιρέσιον τὸν καλόν. 183.  Ep. ad Athen. 270D; see Wright 1913: 249 n. 2, who detected a quote here from Euripides (Orestes 14). 184.  See Ep. ad Athen. 270D, 272B–C.

Laudatiua Materia    135

ing his cousin in a just cause and in accordance with justice.185 And yet he later showcases his epistolary diplomacy, his attempts at reconciliation with him,186 which contrasts with Constantius’s letters and negotiations with barbarians along the Rhine, apparently in order to undermine Julian’s position there.187 By drawing this distinction, Julian took further aim at the very basis of his cousin’s Augustan authority and legitimacy. The junior Augustus also offers other sensitive and unflattering information regarding his cousin: Constantius’s childlessness and his relatively poor record of achievement against the Persians, the latter of which would have been a point of no little interest to the Athenians. Julian had noted Athens’s success under Themistocles against the Persians, which is an indirect reminder that Constantius could not boast any such success.188 Further, Julian connects these unflattering items directly to Constantius’s killing of their relatives in the summer of 337.189 In so doing, Julian subtly and conversely links his victories on the Rhine frontier to the injustice his branch of the imperial family had suffered at Constantius’s hands: that it was right and proper that Julian should enjoy such achievement. He goes on to claim that, when considering his relative failure against Persia, Constantius accordingly regretted his hand in the massacre of the imperial family.190 Julian asserts that his sources for this were some individuals around Constantius’s court as well as others around his brother Gallus, who would have been in a position to know something about Constantius’s motives for elevating him to the Caesarship in person at Sirmium in March 351.191 Those at Constantius’s court had also told

185.  Ep. ad Athen. 269D–270A. 186.  Ep. ad Athen. 285D–286D; more below. 187.  Ep. ad Athen. 286A. On Constantius’s letters to the Alamannic “king” Vadomarius, see Thompson 1943: 83–88; cf. Marcos 2015: 676 and n. 28. 188.  Ep. ad Athen. 269B. See also n. 220 below. 189.  Ep. ad Athen. 270D–271A. See also 275C, where Julian subtly alludes to Constantius’s childlessness by noting that Eusebia had not borne Constantius any heirs. 190.  See Marcos 2012: 509, where Julian’s and Philostorgius’s statements are taken as credible. Burgess 2008: 16–17 supports the veracity of Julian’s comments in his Epistle to the Athenians regarding Constantius’s culpability for the dynastic murders in summer 337. In my view, Burgess is right to conclude that “Julian’s statements therefore cannot be dismissed as merely the invention of one out to blacken his opponent” (17). See also nn. 191 and 220 below. 191.  Julian tells us at Ep. ad Athen. 271A that he had heard about Constantius’s repentance for the dynastic murders both from individuals around the court of Constantius and from those around Gallus (Ταῦτα ἐθρύλλουν οἱ περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν τότε καὶ τὸν μακαρίτην ἀδελφὸν ἐμὸν Γάλλον), likely when the latter was Caesar; indeed, note that the phrase οἱ περὶ is not repeated and, although “the court” and “Gallus” are each placed side by side as distinct accusatives, it is implied here that Gallus had his own court. In fact, Julian makes this statement on the heels of referring to Gallus as Caesar at 270D. Julian then follows this up at 271B by noting that he and Gallus also had heard such talk earlier during their upbringing at Macellum; therefore, Julian points to the continuity and consistency of the court talk so as to convey its credibility.

136      Laudatiua Materia

Gallus and Julian these things when both brothers resided at the imperial estate at Macellum in Cappadocia.192 By discussing the six-year “exile” of him and his half brother Gallus at Macellum, Julian presents his second justification for war and develops his targeted assault upon Constantius’s authority and legitimacy.193 Gallus receives a prominent place here and cuts a sympathetic figure in what reads as a genuine instance of fraternal piety on Julian’s part, a piety that would have contrasted well with Constantius’s killing of his relatives in 337 and is certainly meant to do so. Indeed, Julian tells his audience that Constantius also murdered Gallus and adduces this as evidence of Constantius’s flawed character and wielding of power. In his first explicit reference to Gallus, whose memory he rehabilitates here after some six years of memory sanctions (damnatio memoriae),194 Julian contends that he has cause against Constantius and that the latter lacks justice by remarking more than once that Gallus was executed “contrary to the laws.”195 And yet Julian distances himself somewhat from Gallus, whose cruel behavior as Caesar he acknowledges and repudiates.196 Even so, he censures Constantius for retaining the estates of Julius Constantius, whose property should have passed to his sons Gallus and Julian.197 This is another clever strike on Julian’s part, because earlier he had repeated Constantius’s disavowal and repudiation of the murder of their relatives and his laying of blame on the soldiery as the responsible party;198 if correct, however, then there would not have been any cause for Constantius to seize the estates of his dead uncle, who was a victim. In other words, whereas Julian describes Gallus as cruel by nature—a cruelty, we should note, that Julian qualifies by saying that it could have been worse and that he lays at the feet of Constantius, justly, he tells us, as the one responsible 192.  Ep. ad Athen. 271B. 193.  Ep. ad Athen. 271B–D. On Julian at Macellum, see Bidez 1965: 22–26; Festugière 1957; Bowersock 1978: 25–27; and Tougher 2007: 15–16. Why did Constantius place Gallus and Julian at Macellum and for so long? That Constantius wished to raise them quietly away from the intense political atmosphere at his court in Constantinople can be only a partial answer. Conversely, Constantius’s decision also can be read to support the view that he had a deep political insecurity, if not a jealous and suspicious nature, and that he was not very popular among his subjects, at least in Constantinople, if he indeed feared Gallus’s and Julian’s residing there with him. Cf. Them. Or. 1, 15B. 194.  On damnatio memoriae, see H. I. Flower 2006 and Omissi 2016. 195.  Ep. ad Athen. 271A: παρὰ τοὺς νόμους; cf. 272B. There may be a faint hinting here of Constantine’s well-known execution of Crispus Caesar, who apparently did receive a trial before being executed by his father (Quorum cum natu grandior, incertum qua causa, patris iudicio occidisset, Aur. Vict. 41.11). This is the precedent that Constantius would have considered in how to dispense with his own Caesar and relative, Gallus. 196.  Ep. ad Athen. 272C. 197.  Ep. ad Athen. 273B. 198.  Ep. ad Athen. 271B. Here Julian conveys Constantius’ disavowal indirectly via hearsay.

Laudatiua Materia    137

for Gallus’s upbringing,199—he casts Constantius as cruel by choice.200 This portrayal, which Julian makes nearly at the outset of his Epistle, has several implications. For one, it again undermines Constantius’s moral qualities and qualifications for rule and casts a shadow over all his interactions with Gallus and Julian and the motives behind them, although cruelty is a panegyrical topos on the “tyrant.”201 Secondly, if Gallus deserved execution because of his cruelty, as Julian still admits, then Constantius deserved a similar fate for his, an implication that the audience of this pronouncement cannot have failed to appreciate. Finally, when compared to both Gallus and Constantius, Julian appears as neither, that is, he is neither cruel by nature nor by choice, and therefore looks better than both men in his temperament while meeting another qualification for ruling well. Julian states that prior to his elevation to Caesar, in 354/5, he had strongly refused to have contact with the palace,202 which is a strange statement and must be read as a kind of recusatio,203 since he also relates and belittles how he looked being dressed in a military cloak when about to be invested with the rank of Caesar.204 But a military cloak (Lat. paludamentum) was the legitimate garb of an emperor such as Julian, whom Ammianus depicts still wearing one after his acclamation as Augustus at Paris,205 which shows that Julian continually wore it as a mark of legitimacy. He wore a military cloak but declares that he was not sent to Gaul as a general so much as a subordinate of the generals there.206 Of course, Constantius was quite reasonable and prudent in restricting Julian in this way, at least at first, since Julian apparently had no military experience to speak of.207 However, Julian does not say that this was Constantius’s concern, only that he feared that Julian might start a rebellion,208 which throws into relief the fact that, despite having grounds for revolt, Julian had consistently displayed loyalty to Constantius for four years.209 After Julian’s claims of loyalty and his presentation of his sensible behavior, such a 199.  Ep. ad Athen. 271D. 200.  See Ep. ad Athen. 272C–D, where Julian states that Constantius did not kill Gallus out of anger, as one might expect from an enemy, but in order to gratify his chamberlain Eusebius. Apart from the inverted and ironic power dynamic related here between Constantius and Eusebius, the motive presented casts Gallus’s execution, in modern parlance, as premeditated murder. Cf. R. Flower 2016: 142, 144, 146–51, 155, 158, 161–63, 167, 173–74, 176–77, and 181, for Lucifer of Cagliari’s consistent charges of cruelty against Constantius in a similar invective. 201.  E.g., Pan. Lat. 12(9).4.4, 4(10).30.1, 2(12).24.6. 202.  Ep. ad Athen. 274C. 203.  Cf. Ep. ad Athen. 277A. 204.  Ep. ad Athen. 274C: χλανίδα. 205.  Amm. 21.5.12; cf. Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 277A: χλανίδιον. See also Valensi 1957: 73. 206.  Ep. ad Athen. 277D. Cf. chapter 2, n. 153. 207.  See appendix B. 208.  Ep. ad Athen. 277D. 209.  Ep. ad Athen. 280D.

138      Laudatiua Materia

striking statement as Constantius’s fear of him rebelling reflects Julian’s attempt to condition his readers’ reception of the redeployment directives for the Gallic legions that he had received as Caesar in early 360 (more below).210 He also states that Constantius had thought little of his potential as a general because he appeared “mild and measured.”211 Here Julian subverts the typical value of the adjective metrios as a key monarchical virtue.212 In the context of being a commander in the field, Julian equates the adjective from Constantius’s perspective with something like “unwarlike.” In so doing, he manages to claim a key imperial virtue for himself while also underscoring that Constantius had not prepared him as a soldier, no doubt with the intention of enhancing his subsequent military achievements in the text. Moreover, “I had shown myself mild and measured” communicates the persistent self-image of a loyal subordinate who has kept to his assigned station.213 Indeed, Julian states that he had requested written instructions from Constantius on the scope of his duties in Gaul.214 Subsequently, Julian offers his third justification for civil war in his public record of military activities and achievements as Caesar from spring 357 forward.215 We are given a robust self-presentation of Julian as successful commander in Gaul and in Alamannia, one who reclaimed numerous Roman cities from the Germans and Alamanni and who won a great victory against them at Argentoratum in 357,216 who crossed the Rhine three times and engaged Rome’s enemies,217 and who took thousands of the enemy prisoner and yet remained a loyal and dutiful subordinate of Constantius,218 among other actions. In this section of the open letter, Julian also explicitly mocks Constantius as a commander by comparison, calling Constantius’s campaign against the Quadi and Sarmatians along the Danube in 358–359 a 210.  Note also that Julian inserts the infamous cases of Africanus, Marinus, and Felix, who were apparently executed by Constantius based on innuendo from his informants (Ep. ad Athen. 273C–D), so as to present his audience with a consistently paranoid Constantius who eventually came to distrust Julian because of informants as well (282C). Ammianus, likely drawing from Julian’s account, frames Constantius’s redeployment orders for Julian’s troops as emanating from jealousy (20.4.1–2). As scholars have seen, however, “jealousy” is better read as political insecurity; see nn. 29 and 86 above. 211.  Ep. ad Athen. 278C: ἔγωγε ἐνομίσθην ἥκιστα σπουδαῖος καὶ δεινὸς στρατηγός, ἅτε πρᾷον ἐμαυτὸν παρασχὼν καὶ μέτριον; cf. 277A. 212.  For imperial self-restraint, see Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 41. 213.  Ep. ad Athen. 278C–D. Cf. Amm. 21.5.5; Marcos 2015: 686 n. 59, where Ammianus has Julian refer to himself as moderatus . . . et tranquillus and consideratus et cautus in a speech on the eve of marching against Constantius in 361 to show that Julian had acted properly as Caesar. 214.  Ep. ad Athen. 282A–B. Cf. chapter 2, n. 220. 215.  Ep. ad Athen. 278D–280D. 216.  Ep. ad Athen. 279A–C. 217.  Ep. ad Athen. 280C. 218.  Ep. ad Athen. 280C–D. Cf. Amm. 16.7.3: Caesarem . . . apparitoremque fidum auctori suo, quoad uixerit, fore; 17.11.1: apparitorem Caesarem; 20.8.6: apparitor fidus. On the term apparitor in Ammianus and Julian’s use of πιστός in his panegyric on Eusebia, see García Ruiz 2013a: 91–94.

Laudatiua Materia    139

“friendly encounter.”219 He had already undercut Constantius the general by noting his lack of success in the East against the Persians,220 and so undercut one of his qualifications for holding imperial power as an Augustus, once again traceable to his first panegyric.221 As part of his blending of polemic and (auto-)panegyric, Julian describes Constantius as consistently ineffective and in contrast to Julian’s own consistent victories on the Rhine frontier. He dedicates relatively considerable space to showcasing his military credentials, a prominent act of self-promotion that invites a comparison with Constantius and constitutes an indirect assault upon him for an Eastern audience, while presenting his military exploits as Caesar as satisfying a key criterion for his holding imperial power and being worthy of the higher rank of Augustus. When we consider that Julian commences his narrative by presenting himself as a young prince whose position and very life were anything but secure, and then develops into a capable and effective general of the first order in what reads as a meteoric and truly unexpected rise, we can see that he goes beyond apology and autobiography, that he deftly panegyrizes himself. Indeed, he describes his practice of all four cardinal virtues. In due course, and in a short space of text, he speaks of practical wisdom, justice, and courage, and depicts himself exercising restraint or temperance,222 not unlike Ammianus’s portrayal of his conduct prior to and during the pronouncement at Paris.223 Julian is careful not to ascribe these virtues to himself explicitly, which would negate their value, but he invokes them subtly and leaves it up to his listeners/readers to associate them with him. And while piety is not mentioned, devotion toward the gods is a virtue that is particularly manifest throughout the Epistle to the Athenians. By his well-placed and vigorous invocations of numerous deities, Julian communicates his sincerity and his general but not exclusive support for traditional worship.224 He was challenging Constantius in his own territory, and so sought to foster wide support for his 219.  Ep. ad Athen. 279D. See also Marcos 2015, for Ammianus’s similar comparisons of Constantius and Julian as commanders. 220.  Ep. ad Athen. 271A. Constantius’s approach to the Persians was complicated, and his record against them was actually mixed (see Blockley 1989 and 1992: 12–24; Seager 1997: 253–62). But Julian’s point here is that Constantius had not achieved any traditional victories in the field, like Galerius had in 298, a point that would have resonated with his Eastern audience. 221.  Or. 1, 22D. 222.  Ep. ad Athen. 275D: φρόνησις; 276B: τὸ δίκαιον; 276C: ἀνδρεία; 277A, 277C; cf. 278C: πρᾷον . . . καὶ μέτριον. 223.  See Amm. 20.4; and the first section above. 224.  See Marcos 2019a: 539 and nn. 78 and 79. Cf. Humphries 2012: 78–79, who sees Julian’s invocations of the gods as communicating his sincerity but not communicating a new religious program. To be sure, conveying his sincerity was one of his aims, but Julian makes no mention of Christianity. In my view, his invocations also conveyed where his religious sympathies lay without overtly alienating Christians.

140      Laudatiua Materia

usurpation by appealing to many sectors of the public, such as those who shared his adherence to traditional cult, as yet still in the majority, and whom Constantius could not appeal to on the same grounds. As an apologia, polemic, “autobiography,” and auto-panegyric, the Epistle to the Athenians was a timely, sophisticated, and necessary promotion for Julian, because no one else was going to do it for him. At last, Julian comes to his fourth justification and the main point at issue: he offers his version of events at Paris that culminated in his elevation to Augustus there,225 a version we have already seen in Ammianus. As will be shown below, recusatio imperii, so prevalent in Ammianus’s account, prominent in Caesar Augustus’s autobiographical Res gestae, and often featured in imperial panegyric,226 is also a critical component of Julian’s account of these events. In fact, Julian’s recusatio constitutes another favorable contrast with Constantius, this time against his seizure of power in 337, as it is undoubtedly meant to. First, Julian presents Constantius’s redeployment instructions as having been conceived from jealousy (political insecurity) and notes that these instructions were addressed to Lupicinus and a certain Gintonius, who should be identified with Sintula, Julian’s stablemaster (tribunus stabuli).227 Julian then declares that he had threatened to resign his share of imperial power as Caesar.228 He adds that because Lupicinus and Florentius, his top military and civilian officials, respectively, were absent from Paris, the one in Britain and the other at Vienne, he advised delay in the implementation of Constantius’s redeployment orders.229 Julian now introduces the anonymous leaflet and elaborates that its author reproached Constantius for the effect his orders would have on the Gallic provincials, and that the author sympathized with the Caesar’s predicament.230 Julian deploys these seemingly straightforward remarks to authenticate his concerns about Constantius’s directives, in that a third party judged them, according to Julian, to be unwise and unjust. This development in the appearance of the leaflet, we are told, prompted Constantius’s officers to speed up their timetable for the troop redeployments out of 225.  Ep. ad Athen. 282D. 226.  RG 5–6, 21; Pan Lat. 7(6).11.5–6, 6(7).8.4, 2(12).11.1–12.1; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 23. See also n. 34 above. 227.  Seeck 1911: 282; PLRE 1.845, Sintula; Matthews 2007: 94. 228.  Ep. ad Athen. 283A. 229.  Ep. ad Athen. 282B, 283A. Cf. Bowersock 1978: 53, who interprets Constantius’s subsequent removal of Lupicinus and Florentius as a possible rebuke for their having allowed the Gallic legions to acclaim Julian at Paris. If so, this interpretation has the unintended effect of making Julian’s complaint regarding their absence well founded. Had Julian learned about the redeployment orders in advance? See Drinkwater 1983: 378–79, for an interesting but not compelling explanation of Lupicinus’s and Florentius’s absence; and Humphries 2012: 83. Cf. Matthews 2007: 95–97, who argues for an alternative view that makes more sense. In short, Lupicinus and his forces were genuinely needed in Britain, and Florentius wanted to go to and remain at Vienne. 230.  Ep. ad Athen. 283B (Wright): ἀνώνυμον γραμματεῖον.

Laudatiua Materia    141

fear of another leaflet emerging.231 In response, Julian suggested that they wait for the absent Lupicinus and Florentius, but in this he was overruled by Constantius’s on-site officers, who insisted that there should be no delays, and so they expedited the troop movements, with Julian’s assistance.232 When Julian relates that he then retired to the palace, he denies that he knew what his soldiers had in mind; and thus his recusatio begins in earnest,233 and then is made explicitly.234 He keenly wished his audience to believe that he had served Constantius faithfully and consistently.235 As for Constantius’s officials (philoi), some of them tried to bribe the troops into rejecting Julian,236 that is, to assassinate him, which is credible, given that Constantius had used this very method to eliminate Ablabius and Silvanus, and likely Dalmatius Caesar as well.237 And Julian strengthens his recusatio here when he tells us that he knew about this attempt to bribe his troops but did nothing. It was one of his palace guards who rushed into Paris’s forum, implored the soldiers and others not to abandon the emperor, and inspired the troops, who then surrounded the palace (see map 2).238 Unsurprisingly, nowhere does Julian even hint that his acclamation was invalid. So the reluctant but rightful Augustus subsequently outlines a series of acts by Constantius that depict him in turn as uncompromising and aggressive: he had rejected Julian’s pronouncement, sent the aforementioned letters to the German tribes along the Rhine in a bid to undermine the frontier stability that Gaul had only recently begun to enjoy,239 and apparently made advance preparations for a march westward, all before Julian invaded Illyricum in 361.240 Consequently, as we can see, Ammianus saw fit to use much of Julian’s account, which employs panegyrical elements with a particular emphasis on recusatio, for his narrative on the emperor’s conduct at Paris in 360. In the skillful rendering of himself and Constantius in his Epistle to the Athenians, Julian gives his audience two very different practitioners and images of imperial power—one (Julian) who faithfully executes his superior’s orders, is an effective commander, and abstains from rebelling against him, although we are repeatedly told that he had cause to, and that Augustan rank was foisted on him; and another (Constantius), a tyrant, who murdered his relatives, is not particularly successful as a general, suspects his subordinate, and places his desire for unitary 231.  Ep. ad Athen. 283B–C. 232.  Ep. ad Athen. 283C–284A. 233.  Ep. ad Athen. 284B. 234.  Ep. ad Athen. 284D. 235.  Ep. ad Athen. 285A. 236.  Ep. ad Athen. 285A–B. 237.  See Marcos 2014: 768–70. 238.  Ep. ad Athen. 285B–C; cf. Amm. 20.4.20. 239.  See n. 187 above. 240.  Ep. ad Athen. 286A–C.

142      Laudatiua Materia

Augustan authority above frontier security and stability for his subjects. In the closing paragraphs of his Epistle, Julian again refers to Constantius’s cruelty in a blanket statement that is purposefully vague but all encompassing;241 he undoubtedly repeats this charge in order to defend the rightness of his movements eastward against Constantius, for, once again, if Julian could stipulate that Gallus had acted too cruelly and deserved execution, that leaves little room for what he is asserting that Constantius deserves. Julian conversely declares that he has done what seemed just to him.242 And he tethers this declaration to his acts of traditional piety, adding that he is doing all this for the freedom of all men and of the Gauls.243 Of course, freedom and justice are high-sounding words, especially when invoked during civil war, words that obscure Julian’s sense of his personal rights and interests; he wanted to be emperor and was more than willing to go to war for it, and so he crafted a multivalent missive to promote and to consolidate his imperial authority and legitimacy as an Augustus in the eyes of an Eastern public. Moreover, as part of his fifth and final justification or proof, we can see Julian continuing his negotiations with Constantius by means of his Epistle to the Athenians,244 in which we see the junior Augustus shrewdly offering the senior emperor another opportunity for reconciliation, an opportunity that both he and the public must have known Constantius would reject—Julian affirms that he would accept reconciliation with the status quo in mind, that is, including his annexation of Illyricum.245 Julian’s Epistle thus speaks to Constantius’s inability to share Augustan rank with anyone after his brother Constans, in addition to the unsuccessful diplomacy Julian had engaged in from Paris.246 In an effort to maintain his exclusive hold on Augustan authority, Constantius opposed and defeated, in turn, Magnentius, Vetranio, and Silvanus, and even executed his own Caesar, Gallus. Therefore Julian was just the latest example of an “extralegal” Augustus. His military reputation and his proposal on the status quo above likely undercut Constantius’s public support in Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace,247 in addition to the latter’s responsibility for the dynastic murders in 337, which seems to have been common knowledge by 361.248 Panegyric aided Julian in this messaging, and in communicating to the educated elite, who were attuned to the language of legitimacy and power. It is striking, however, that Julian, while writing this letter and others at Naissus, nonetheless

241.  Ep. ad Athen. 286D. 242.  Ep. ad Athen. 286D. 243.  Ep. ad Athen. 286D–287A. 244.  Ep. ad Athen. 285D–286D. 245.  Ep. ad Athen. 287A–B. 246.  See n. 90 above. 247.  See n. 156 above. 248.  See Burgess 2008: 24–25.

Laudatiua Materia    143

admits that he might fail and die in his bid against Constantius,249 in which case his Epistle to the Athenians, with all its apologetic, autobiographical, and panegyrical components, would serve as his final public statement and account. Such a remarkable admission, which may very well be sincere, could have been taken as a call to join Julian’s side to ensure that he did not fail. C O N C LU SIO N

As I have demonstrated in this chapter, elements of praise discourse found a prominent place not only in Ammianus’s historical narrative of Julian’s conduct prior to and during the pronouncement at Paris, but also in Julian’s ideological/propagandistic Epistle to the Athenians, which offers the “official story” of that pronouncement and which was itself a source for Ammianus’s account. In fact, Ammianus’s narrative at 20.4 is best explained by panegyric, by the careful and implicit attribution of the four cardinal virtues to Julian in how he handled Constantius’s redeployment orders (iussa Augusti), the very catalyst for Julian’s promotion to Augustus by the Gallic legions, and his subsequent recusatio imperii. After these events, Ammianus assigned two speeches to the junior Augustus, both of which he structured as kinds of mini-panegyrics to Julian and apologiae for his actions. While the “truth” of these events is unknowable, G. W. Bowersock has offered a fair approximation or probability of what occurred at Paris, largely based on Ammianus.250 Panegyric was based on some measure of truth or truths, that is, “facts,” on which a narrative could be built and shaped. That Ammianus outlines Julian’s acclamation, speeches, and subsequent march into Illyricum in a panegyrical mode suggests that panegyric played a crucial role in political discourse, both contemporaneously and for posterity. The messaging of Julian’s speeches thus may have some claim to historicity, since it reflects material and a mode that would have been advantageous to the emperor in a civil war context. All this further underscores a key function of Ammianus’s application of panegyrical material: the legitimization of Julian’s assumption of Augustan authority and power in early 360. When this is considered alongside Ammianus’s treatment of others who also assumed Augustan rank or had it foisted on them, such as Procopius in 365 and Valentinian II in 375,251 we can conclude that the historian saw imperial “legitimacy” as an ideological construct to some extent, as a concept that depended as much on the public behavior of the emperor and the circumstances of his elevation as on his dynastic and mili249.  Ep. ad Athen. 287B–C. 250.  See Bowersock 1978: 46–54. 251.  On Ammianus’s presentation of the usurpation of Procopius as farce and bad theater, see Sabbah 1978: 362–63; Matthews 2007: 191–95, 236–37; R. Flower 2015: 830; and Alonso 2016: 254–59. On the acclamation of Valentinian II, see n. 20 above.

144      Laudatiua Materia

tary claims to the office. The legitimate Augustus appeared and acted as the legitimate one. Julian had played his part and played it well. His decision to craft his Epistle to the Athenians with elements of apologetic, polemical, (auto-)biographical, and panegyrical discourse was a natural development of his presentations of himself as Caesar and of his Augustus in his panegyric on Eusebia and in his second oration on Constantius, both of which included illustrations of Julian’s recusatio imperii and even instances of implicit criticism of Constantius. In his open letter to Athens, Julian deconstructed Constantius publicly as a good emperor and member of the ruling dynasty, both explicitly and implicitly, while simultaneously validating himself as such. Praise discourse, so conspicuous in this self-promotion, assisted Julian in producing an apologia for his actions as Caesar and in highlighting his imperial credentials for Augustan rank while seeking public support against Constantius in Greece and the Balkans. In so doing, Julian produced a rather innovative imperial pronouncement that demonstrates the role of panegyric in elite communication during civil war. His use of panegyric also indicates that he viewed it as possessing social and political value outside of the traditional speech-scene involving orator, emperor, and stately audience hall, or perhaps in another kind of speech-scene, since his open letters were likely recited in public. By variously experimenting with panegyric, by blending it with other literary genres—historiography, polemic, apologia, autobiography, and epistolary writing—Ammianus and Julian managed to convey and to enhance Julian’s imperial profile and legitimacy, in addition to communicating their critical concerns over Julian’s public reception; and in Ammianus’s case, perhaps with the added benefit of subtly casting some doubt on the validity of Julian’s successors, none of whom receive such treatment in the Res gestae.

4

Panegyric, Consensus, and the Reinforcement of Nascent Government Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Julian in Constantinople, 361–362 Now why should I mention your decisions and acts in the curia, by which you restored to the Senate its former authority, refrained from boasting of the salvation which they [senators] had received through you, and promised that its memory would rest eternally in your breast? pan. lat. 12(9).20.1, trans. nixon and rodgers

As we noted in chapter 3, whether a ruler was remembered as an “emperor” or a “usurper” depended on the outcome of his rule and how his successor memorialized him in his media. For example, Constantine and Constantius each disseminated bad press about their defeated rivals after civil war, particularly on their general misgovernment, Constantine after wars against Maxentius and Licinius, Constantius after his conflict with Magnentius.1 But how a ruler was memorialized depended in part on the strength of the political position of his successor. Because his position as sole emperor was somewhat insecure initially in late 361, Julian needed to be circumspect in his early reorganization of the East, that is, Constantius’s former territory. An emperor could assert his right to rule over his former rival’s subjects and they might accept it, but he still needed to earn their support for long-term success, and one early panegyric consistently indicates that Julian knew this and acted accordingly. As I will argue, Julian communicated his concern with reconciliation with his new Eastern subjects and concentrated on related reinforcement of his new government immediately after Constantius’s death on 3 November 361. 1.  On Constantine’s and Constantius’s treatments of their defeated rivals in panegyrics, see Omissi 2018: 103–92.

145

146      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

On 1 January 362, Claudius Mamertinus, the Latin rhetorician, praetorian prefect of Illyricum, Italy, and Africa, and consul prior (consul selected first) for that year, delivered his Gratiarum actio (Speech of Thanks) for his consulship to the emperor Julian in the senate house of Constantinople.2 The significance of this occasion and setting cannot be overestimated, for Eastern senatorial eyes would have been particularly fixed on this Western emperor and his Western praisegiver, eager to assess their new government’s public interests and priorities. Mamertinus’s New Year’s oration is a crucial text for understanding the beginning of Julian’s brief reign by someone who served under the emperor in the highest imperial offices; there is no exact parallel. From what is known of the authors of extant Latin and Greek panegyrics, Mamertinus stands as the highest-ranking official to have delivered an imperial speech of praise. Thus, he was well situated to know Julian’s imperial policies and perhaps even to shape them. As a Gallic rhetorician who delivered a Latin panegyric in the East to a Western but Greek emperor, Mamertinus (and his relationship with Julian) is also critical to our understanding of relations between Latin and Greek paideia (shared education and culture) in the Julianic empire. And the rhetorician’s oration illustrates the emperor’s use of praise discourse to publicize new imperial policy and to build support for his new regime. Indeed, Mamertinus’s imperial speech offers an outline of Julian’s political program,3 and Mamertinus himself can be seen as a kind of official spokesman for Julian. Nevertheless, Mamertinus’s Gratiarum actio should not be considered indicative of Julian’s apparent interest in “provoking a wide-ranging confrontation” with the Constantinopolitan elite.4 Rather, this panegyric communicated the emperor’s desire to replicate his Gallic achievements in the East and to build a new empire-wide consensus between the Latin West and the Greek East after civil war. In fact, imperial panegyric offers evidence of interest in bringing about consensus between civilian and military elites.5 Recently, another scholar has followed and advanced this view by arguing that panegyric, particularly speeches of 2.  PLRE 1.540–41, Claudius Mamertinus 2. For studies on his panegyric, see Pichon 1906: 114–36; Gutzwiller 1942; Barabino 1965; Blockley 2012; García Ruiz 2003; Maranesi 2012; Wienand 2016; Tougher 2020; and Madonna 2021. 3.  Pichon 1906: 118–35; Galletier 1955: 7–9; Barabino 1965: 49–61. 4.  For this confrontation, see Wienand 2016: 348. While Wienand 2016: 349–54 has noted the connection between the terms ultor iuris and uindex Romanae libertatis, and the metaphorical representation in Mamertinus’s panegyric of Julian’s journey down the Danube, his conclusion about this speech being reflective of Julian’s confrontation fails to consider Mamertinus’s presentation of the emperor more holistically, both intratextually and intertextually, as one interested in building consensus with his new Eastern subjects. For example, Wienand does not consider Julian’s clearly nonconfrontational stance on religion and his deference to the Senate of Constantinople, and so members of the administrative elite in the East, through Mamertinus (more below). 5.  MacCormack 1990: 162, and 47–49. See also MacCormack 1975: 163. On the creation of consensus, see Ando 2000: 175–205.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    147

praise on Constantine, were geared toward creating consensus.6 Julian’s position in early 362 was not altogether unlike that of his uncle in early 313 (though more like early 325), and as will be demonstrated in this chapter, Mamertinus’s speech, which is not unlike that of the anonymous panegyrist to Constantine in 313,7 offers much in the interest of agreement between the emperor and the administrative elite of a city and region that he had hitherto not controlled. Of course, tensions often exist between rhetoric and reality, and theory and practice; however, Mamertinus’s presentation of princeps (leader) and policy is in line with Julian’s attested acts and with the presentation of the emperor elsewhere. The Greek rhetorician and orator Himerius of Prusa was also invited to join Julian’s court at Constantinople and performed praise for him there in early 362.8 Like Julian himself, Himerius championed Hellenic paideia, and his proficiency in praise-giving was widely recognized and employed.9 In early 362, Himerius delivered his Oration 41, a panegyric on Constantinople that also bears witness to Julian’s interests and priorities, though it was not delivered before the emperor.10 There have been many studies on Claudius Mamertinus’s panegyric and Himerius’s Oration 41, but none, to my knowledge, has assessed these texts in tandem. This chapter will assess these two panegyrics in sequence in order to explore how they represent the emperor and what they communicated to Julian’s subjects about his emerging government. Mamertinus emphasizes Julian’s efforts to cultivate ciuilitas or “fellow citizen status” toward his administrators,11 one of whom, we should note, was Mamertinus himself.12 And Mamertinus’s oration is in keeping with Pliny the Younger’s influential Panegyricus on Trajan (more properly a gratiarum actio).13 As I will show, Mamertinus’s Latin speech can provide further insights into this early period of Julian’s reign as sole Augustus, especially when considered alongside Himerius’s speech, written in Greek. Himerius helps to shed light on Mamertinus’s presentation of Julian as a ciuilis princeps (leader as fellow citizen) and his reinforcement of Julian’s imperial legitimacy and authority at the time that the emperor was consolidating his power over the East.14 Both orations were 6.  Maranesi 2016. See also Maranesi 2012 and Madonna 2021, who see consensus-building in some of the same areas in Mamertinus’s panegyric that are discussed in this chapter. 7.  Pan. Lat. 12(9). 8.  See Caltabiano 2009: 143–47, for those whom Julian invited to his court. 9.  On Himerius in general, see Barnes 1987; and Penella 2007: 1–16. 10.  On Or. 41 and its context, see Greco 2003; and Penella 2007: 34–38, 58–65. 11.  Blockley 2012: 355. 12.  Pliny had done something similar with Trajan, who is described as a ciuis (Pan. 2.3). 13.  On Pliny as exemplar for Latin panegyrists, see MacCormack 1975 and García Ruiz 2013b. 14.  See also Eutrop. 10.16.3: Ciuilis in cunctos; Amm. 25.4.7. On Julian as ciuilis princeps in Ammianus Marcellinus, see Neri 1984, esp. 61–69. On the ciuilis princeps, see the classic article of WallaceHadrill (1982). See also n. 118 below.

148      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

written with an eye to being disseminated to the public, and both speak to Julian’s intentions and agenda as sole emperor in early 362. I will argue that Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s panegyrics were designed to create a “buy-in” or consensus among their elite audiences, and perhaps the wider public, for the emperor’s nascent government. The two speeches variously underplay religion in favor of political and civil concerns, consistent with the rather conventional political and military iconography and messages on Julian’s coinage as sole emperor issued empire-wide.15 This messaging can be traced back to Julian’s desire early in his reign to engender wide-ranging support for his administration and to encourage cooperation between all social classes and groups within the empire, regardless of religious identity, by addressing their common expectations for safety and security from a government that could be more responsive and less oppressive in its wielding of power than it had been under Constantius II, and earlier. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section examines Mamertinus’s presentation of Julian and his conduct as emperor, along with numerous instances of Mamertinus’s self-promotion, in which he highlights his position as a kind of official spokesman for Julian and thus suggests his imperial speech reflects official policy. Analysis of this speech reveals a careful effort to de-emphasize religion and to focus instead on military and especially civil concerns. Therefore, attention is also paid here to how Mamertinus sought consensus for Julian’s nascent government: by portraying him as a traditional emperor, by emphasizing his ciuilitas (political civility/approachability), and by using historical and contemporary exempla (memorable precedents) to publicize “restored” libertas (political freedom) under Julian—images that are interrelated. The second section considers Julian’s positioning of panegyric after Mamertinus through Himerius, who presents Julian as the new founder of Constantinople, reflecting, I will suggest, the emperor’s desire to be portrayed as such to a wider Greek audience in the interest of solidifying his Eastern support. Unlike Mamertinus, Himerius mentions the raising of temples and the introduction of religious rites to the city, but he publicizes this new policy in a vague fashion and as part of a much larger civic program. Julian is well known as the last emperor to promote traditional cult energetically, the last to order the restoration of temples, but Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s orations show us another Julian, one who was more inclusive and careful in his messaging than previously allowed. Mamertinus and Himerius designed their speeches of praise variously to unite and reinforce. We will examine Mamertinus’s panegyric first, as it is securely dated, unlike Himerius’s Oration 41. 15.  For classic studies on Julian’s coinage, see Webb 1910, Elmer 1937, Kent 1959 and 1981, and Gilliard 1964. Julian’s coin issues as sole Augustus, even his so-called bull coinage, are quite Constantinian and conventional in their emphasis on the valor of the Roman military and on state security (see López Sánchez 2012; and below).

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    149 T H E NAT I V E S O N R E T U R N S : R E C O N C I L I N G T H E W E ST A N D T H E E A S T A F T E R C I V I L WA R

Mamertinus’s Latin panegyric is the earliest extant speech of praise to Julian as sole emperor, and was likely among the very first Julian received after being welcomed into Constantinople on 11 December 361.16 As has been observed regarding Pliny’s panegyric on Trajan, “Panegyric produced so early in the reign can serve another function besides praise: it can reflect or even prescribe a programme of behaviour to the new emperor.”17 Mamertinus undoubtedly had some ideas about how Julian should rule, and subtle criticisms are apparent in his panegyric, criticisms consistent with what has been seen as the “ascending communication” of imperial speeches of praise.18 Conversely, an emperor could use panegyric to disseminate his image and ideology in what has been termed “descending communication,”19 as is evident in Mamertinus’s speech to Julian. The provincial Mamertinus had left the Latin West for the Greek East, although he did not display Greek but Latin eloquence (if he even knew Greek; see below). One can only wonder what senators of Constantinople—including Themistius—thought of a Gallic provincial entering their Eastern metropolis as consul prior for 362.20 It is not by chance that the Gallic Mamertinus delivered a Latin oration before a Greek Roman emperor in Constantinople, which was Julian’s patria (native city); thus the greater significance of a New Year’s panegyric there. This selection and scene were undoubtedly what Julian wanted, likely because they balanced several important interests: Julian’s entire tenure as Caesar had been spent in the Latin West, where he had built a strong power base that challenged Constantius, but he was also a member of the Eastern elite, with strong dynastic ties there, and was the first Roman emperor born in Constantinople. The emperor could have chosen someone else to deliver a panegyric to him and in Greek, such as Himerius, as we might have expected of an emperor who vigorously championed Greek paideia; in fact, Julian even preferred to speak with his consistory and discuss legal issues and state business in Greek, not Latin.21 The choice of a Latin panegyrist makes good sense, however; Latin was still the official language of the

16.  Amm. 22.2.4; Consul. Const. (Descr. cons.) s. a. 361.2. On the significance of Julian’s entry on 11 December 361, see below. It would seem that Julian also received a Latin prose or verse panegyric from another Gallic rhetorician (Aus. Prof. 2.21–2; PLRE 1.39, Latinus Alcimus Alethius), probably in Gaul after his acclamation at Paris in early 360 but before he marched to Kaiseraugst in early 361. 17.  Braund 1998: 66. 18.  Sabbah 1984: 377–79. See also Him. Or. 48, 27–31 (Colonna); and Ware 2019. 19.  See n. 18 above. 20.  For his part, Mamertinus displays respect to Eastern senators in his speech; so Moser 2018: 256, 329; and Tougher 2020: 127. 21.  CTh 11.39.5; see Harries 2012: 124–25; and Brendel 2017: 63–65.

150      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

Senate and of the imperial administration.22 Indeed, as we have seen, Constantius had adlected the Greek Themistius to the Senate of Constantinople in late 355 by means of a Latin letter to that body, a letter that was translated into Greek for Themistius and for others among the Greek-speaking elite. Thus by having Mamertinus deliver a Latin panegyric before him in the senate house on New Year’s Day 362, Julian conspicuously communicated his respect for the Latin tradition to Constantinopolitan senators. That Mamertinus held high public office also gave his speech an “official” quality.23 Yet why did Julian select Mamertinus for this dual honor, of being consul prior and delivering a gratiarum actio? In light of what Julian had stated amusingly about the lack of Greek paideia in Gaul,24 it would be worth knowing under what conditions he became acquainted with this Latin rhetorician and how the latter came to be respected by the emperor, promoted to higher and higher office, and designated consul prior for 362.25 It is likely that Mamertinus knew some Greek, and if so, that he had learned it in the West, particularly in the Gallic schools. In fact, Greek language and literature were important components of the Gallic curricula, at Bordeaux and Lyons, for example, that continued to be taught well into the fifth century, as Sidonius Apollinaris bears witness.26 In connection with this, we should consider the Gallic- or Spanish-born Flavius Sallustius, who was Julian’s praetorian prefect of Gaul from 361 to 363, consul posterior (consul selected second) with the emperor himself in 363, and perhaps author of the Greek philosophical treatise On the Gods and the World.27 The Westerner Sallustius thus would have known Greek quite well, and knowledge of the language may help to explain not only his promotions and close relationship with the emperor but also Mamertinus’s. Julian entered Constantinople at the head of Western and Eastern troops,28 but he had been strongly supported as Augustus by provincials in Gaul and other Western provinces in his bid against Constantius. Mamertinus’s fellow consul for 22.  See Millar 2007: 20–23, 84–93. 23.  This will be an important point to remember when we discuss Himerius’s subsequent Or. 41, which he delivered at Constantinople and in Greek. 24.  Jul. Ep. 3 Wright (8 Bidez) 441B–C. 25.  We do not know when exactly they first met in Gaul and under what circumstances, except that it was when Julian was still Caesar and so before early 360, when the Gallic army promoted Julian to Augustus: Nam primum, cum Caesar esses, marcentem iam cupiditatis meae flammam spei bonae flatibus excitasti (Pan. Lat. 3[11].17.4). 26.  See Marrou 1982: 258; and Kaster 1988: 102, 104, 467–68. On education and culture, see A. H. M. Jones 1986: 986–1004. 27.  Authorship of this treatise also has been attributed to Salutius, Julian’s praetorian prefect in the East; see PLRE 1.797–98, Flavius Sallustius 5; 1.814–17, Saturninius Secundus Salutius; CLRE 363. The careers and identities of these two men in relation to Julian have been debated, but both were Westerners, apparently from Spain and Gaul, respectively, where they may have learned Greek. 28.  Amm. 21.15.4, 22.2.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    151

362, consul posterior Flavius Nevitta, was one of Julian’s top generals and a Westerner as well.29 The emperor’s choice of Mamertinus to deliver what was perhaps the first panegyric of his sole reign, then, was quite purposeful. In pointedly giving both a Western intellectual and a staunch Western military supporter a consulship, and granting Mamertinus the added honor of the opportunity to display his Latin paideia in Constantinople, Julian was promoting Western interests. He likely made these decisions in the interest of building a new equilibrium after civil war, asserting Western dominance at the outset of his reign so as to solidify his hold on the West, and then reorganizing the East,30 particularly through his Persian campaign in 363. As already noted above, the emperor’s fellow consul for 363 would not be an Easterner but the Westerner Flavius Sallustius. We should see a similar motive on Julian’s part in his early appointment at Constantinople of the learned Roman senator Vettius Agorius Praetextatus as proconsul of Achaia, a position more recently reserved for the Eastern elite.31 This is not to say that there were inherent tensions between the West and the East but that periods of civil war, such as that between Julian and Constantius, were often followed by the need to build a new consensus in accord with how strong the winning emperor’s position was and how interested he was in accommodation.32 As we will see below, the need for consensus was also manifest when the elite of the losing side championed opposing religious beliefs, as was the case with the Senate of Constantinople, which seems to have been Christian to a great extent under Constantius (though its chief senator, Themistius, notably was not).33 With respect to fostering agreement, in the exordium of his oration Mamertinus tells Julian that it was right for him to deliver his speech of thanks to the emperor 29.  PLRE 1.626–27, Flavius Nevitta. 30.  See Amm. 21.12.25: tunc ut et securitatem trepidis rebus afferret et oboedientium nutriret fiduciam, Mamertinum promotum praefectum praetorio per Illyricum designauit consulem et Neuittam. 31.  PLRE 1.722–24, Vettius Agorius Praetextatus 1. Our knowledge of who served as proconsuls of Achaia in the fourth century is rather limited (see PLRE 1.1076–77), but it is significant that Praetextatus’s immediate predecessor and apparent successor in this office hailed from Antioch (see PLRE 1.56– 57, Publius Ampelius 3; 1.645–46, Olympius 9). An interesting parallel with Julian’s appointment of Praetextatus as proconsul is Constantine’s appointment of the Roman senator and poet Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius to the same post after his defeat of Licinius in 324, perhaps ca. 325/6 (see PLRE 1.649, Barnes 1975, and Wienand 2012b). On Optatianus’s relationship with Constantine and with fellow senators at Rome, see Salzman 2016: 33–34. 32.  After defeating Magnentius in summer 353 (and when the East was secure under Gallus), Constantius apparently engaged in an intense purge of Magnentius’s supporters in Gaul (Amm. 14.5; cf. chapter 2), whereas Julian, after Constantius’s death, seemingly targeted relatively few of Constantius’s appointees and put them on trial at Chalcedon (Amm. 22.3). That Julian allowed an individual such as Ursulus—who had supported him in Gaul but who had run afoul of the Eastern army (20.11.5, 22.3.8)— to be executed illustrates both Julian’s difficult position and his interest in acquiring Eastern military approval for his rule as sole Augustus. Ursulus was sacrificed on the altar of Concordia. See n. 77 below. 33.  Cf. Pichon 1906: 135.

152      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

“in accordance with public judgment and authority,” a phrase that almost certainly refers to an official request by the Senate of Constantinople for Mamertinus as consul to deliver his panegyric.34 If so, this would indicate senatorial approval of Mamertinus, and, by extension, senatorial ratification of Julian’s position, in addition to the senate house serving as the venue for Mamertinus’s Gratiarum actio. The emperor had conspicuously displayed support for consensus shortly after entering Constantinople, when he honored Constantius with a state funeral and according to Christian rites in the Church of the Holy Apostles there.35 That such a move enhanced Julian’s legitimacy should not detract from the fact that he did not attempt to do the opposite, that is, to condemn Constantius and to impose himself on his new subjects in heavy-handed fashion. In short, the sole but still insecure Augustus was attuned to the realities of power. Here we might note that Constantine had ruled the West undisputed as an Augustus for about twelve years, and so could feel secure in his hold on the Western provinces when first reorganizing the East in late 324/early 325,36 whereas Julian had controlled the West undisputed in the capacity of Augustus for less than two months at the start of 362, and so would have needed to buttress his hold on the western half of the empire while more gently asserting his authority in the newly acquired eastern half. Although his references to Julian’s years in Gaul are brief,37 Mamertinus still outlines the emperor’s public record of success in the West, primarily in the military and civil/economic spheres, and, in so doing, suggests what the East could expect from its new Augustus. In this light, given that Julian’s education and literary productions were all in Greek, he may have intended for Mamertinus’s panegyric to help Romanize him further as sole emperor for certain Latin-speaking audiences, such as the Senate of Constantinople. To help build consensus between sovereign and subjects after civil war, recourse also could be made to common and expected portrayals of the emperor through a speech of praise, in which a panegyrist engages 34.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).2.6: publico iudicio et nomine. Galletier 1955: 18 n. 1 observed that Mamertinus’s use of publico iudicio refers to “une décision officielle du Sénat . . . chargeant Mamertin de remercier l’empereur.” This view in fact accords with Mamertinus’s previous description of city and senate demanding Mamertinus’s panegyric at 2.3 (haec urbs atque hoc augustissimum consilii publici templum officium huius orationis efflagitant) and subsequent remark on its action at 29.4 (nos ad curiam sollemnia diei huius senatusconsulta ducebant). 35.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).27.5; Lib. Or. 18, 120; Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 16–17; Amm. 21.16.20; Philostorg. HE 6.6, 6.6/7a.1–2. See Hunt 1998: 61: “It was a situation which demanded from Julian more than a mere display of legitimacy; he had actively to cultivate the support of military and civilian classes in the east who clung to the memory of his dead rival.” 36.  See Barnes 1981: 245–48. Constantine also appears less interested in reconciliation in his reorganization of the East in 325 when we consider that it was not Julius Julianus, Licinius’s former and longtime praetorian prefect in the East, but a Jonius Julianus who was likely consul that year alongside the Westerner Sex. Anicius Paulinus (see CLRE 325; Salway 2008: 285–91). 37.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1; more below.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    153

in communications between emperor and audience the moment he first speaks in a highly choreographed ceremony that was still part of a dynamic process. In a recent study on Pliny’s panegyric on Trajan and Pacatus’s panegyric to Theodosius, it has been observed that panegyric was concerned with idealized images of the past and the present, that a panegyrist did not commit himself to providing an unbiased assessment of events—an approach understood by his audience.38 Even so, Mamertinus’s panegyric stands as a unique speech in many respects, not least of which for his religious neutrality and his engagement in self-promotion.39 To be sure, Mamertinus’s version of events is far from dispassionate, and it is unlikely that his audience expected anything less; indeed, Julian is praised and presented in many ways just as we would expect in a panegyric. But in other ways this oration displays a preoccupation with balance. There is no attempt to recast Julian and Constantius’s relationship before war erupted as anything but strained.40 And yet Mamertinus downplays that a state of civil war had existed between them; he only hints at it delicately.41 He even manages to suggest subtly that Julian’s invasion and annexation of Illyricum was an outcome of Constantius’s provocations, while glossing over the motive behind Julian’s movements.42 Though his literary embellishments are frequent, the rhetorician-consul nonetheless also presents his material with a unique emphasis on his authority as an actor in and witness to Julian’s activities, and thus on his reliability as a source of information on the emperor. That Mamertinus inserts himself into his speech with such regularity indicates his interest in self-aggrandizement before the emperor and the Constantinopolitan Senate and elite, as we shall see below. This was not unheard-of. In his ambassadorial speech before Constantius at Rome in 357, Themistius, as we have seen, engaged in self-promotion before a Western audience that was likely unfamiliar with him, but not to the extent that Mamertinus would engage in before Julian and an Eastern audience. “Even though I know that you, emperor, and all those who share in your counsel may be amazed because now at last I have begun to give [you] thanks”43—so 38.  C. Kelly 2015: 220. 39.  Cf. Aus. Grat. act. 8.36–40, for similar self-promotion, but focusing pointedly on more personal aspects of the panegyrist’s character and habits. Moreover, Ausonius tells us less about Gratian than Mamertinus does about Julian. 40.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1–2, 5.2. 41.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).14.5, 27.4–5. 42.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).6.1–2; cf. MacCormack 1975: 162; Seager 1984: 156 and n. 23; Lieu 1989: 17, nn. 14 and 15; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 401–3, nn. 38 and 39. 43.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).1.1: Etsi scio te, imperator, et cunctos qui consilium tuum participant posse mirari quod nunc demum gratias agere exorsus sum. The text is that of Mynors 1964; the translation is a modified version of Nixon and Rodgers 2015. For Mamertinus’s meaning and inspiration here, see García Ruiz 2006a: 101.

154      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

Claudius Mamertinus begins his panegyric to Julian, as panegyrist conveying his place among those in the know. In the peroration, Mamertinus pointedly places himself within the consilium principis (leader’s advisory council) when he tells the emperor (and us) that he promises that he will always be sure that neither truth will fail him when he is offering advice nor confidence when he is conveying his opinion plainly, among other things.44 While Ausonius’s Gratiarum actio in 379 to the emperor Gratian, his former student, comes close,45 no other extant Latin panegyric than Mamertinus’s commences and ends in this way, with the panegyrist pointing so emphatically to his close relationship with the emperor and to those who advise him,46 thus imbuing what is said regarding Julian with unique authority. In fact, Mamertinus’s oration is replete with personal knowledge and observations about the emperor. Julian had also charged Mamertinus, as praetorian prefect of Illyricum, Italy, and Africa, with investigating the revolt at Aquileia and punishing the vilest offenders,47 and he was a also member of the military court that Julian formed to investigate and punish civilian officials under Constantius.48 As Julian’s former minister of the public treasury (comes sacrarum largitionum) and then his consul prior and praetorian prefect, offices that Mamertinus is keen to point to early on and to remind us of later in his speech,49 the rhetorician was well situated to know his emperor and what he desired to be disseminated through panegyric to those in attendance, namely, to fellow high officials of the new regime and to the Senate of Constantinople, which Mamertinus reverentially calls the most august temple of public counsel.50 Interestingly, while he appears to have known Julian fairly well, Mamertinus also frequently inserts himself into his speech throughout, usually explicitly but 44.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).32.3. Cf. 25.1, where Mamertinus notes that some previous emperors, because they were unskilled and inexperienced, chose whoever was the most uneducated for their councils so that their own practical wisdom might stand apart from the crowd of their advisers to an extent. By implication, when we also consider his remarks above, Mamertinus is skillfully highlighting himself as a learned man, and thus that he is eminently qualified to advise Julian as a member of his council and that Julian is not an unskilled and inexperienced emperor for promoting him. For Julian’s consistorium, see Caltabiano 2009: 138–43. On the consistorium, see A. H. M. Jones 1986: 333–41. 45.  Aus. Grat. act. 18.83; PLRE 1.140–41, Decimius Magnus Ausonius 7. Note also Pan. Lat. 8(5).1.4, where the anonymous panegyrist engages in self-authentication but to a lesser extent than Mamertinus and Ausonius. 46.  Pliny both opens and closes his panegyric by addressing, not Trajan, but patres conscripti, that is, his fellow senators (1.1, 95.1). To be sure, as Noreña 2011b has argued, one of Pliny’s chief concerns in his gratiarum actio was on fashioning his self-image. But Pliny is both more subtle and more expansive in his self-promotion than Claudius Mamertinus, who also knew his emperor better. 47.  Amm. 21.12.20. 48.  Amm. 22.3.1; see nn. 77 and 165 below. 49.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).1.4, 1.5, 22.2. 50.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).2.3. See also García Ruiz 2006a: 103–4.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    155

also implicitly, in what are clear examples of self-glorification,51 several of which are rather lengthy.52 Even the rhetorician’s seemingly respectful exclamation of mighty Greek facundia (“eloquence” or “learning”) and subsequent complimentary reference to its prior standing can be read as self-praise, since it is Latin and Gallic eloquence, his eloquence, and not Greek that won the day in delivering an oration before Julian.53 Yet it is possible that Mamertinus’s exclamation is one of sincere humility and admiration, and if so, he presents himself well in duly paying his respects to Greek eloquence while in the Eastern capital. Such a remark may also have been aimed at Themistius, who would have been in attendance, and his public record of oratory under Constantius. In any case, Mamertinus draws attention to himself, and his self-promotion verges on self-panegyric. Indeed, as Edward Gibbon put it with his usual irony, Mamertinus’s “merit is loudly celebrated by the doubtful evidence of his own applause.”54 By outlining the offices he holds (and held) as a result of Julian’s favor, the rhetorician engages in self-authentication, showcasing his credentials for and credibility in speaking about the emperor and his new government while also promoting himself as someone worthy of holding a place in that government. Thus Mamertinus’s self-referential statements squarely cast him as a spokesman for the new regime,55 and his audience in the senate house of Constantinople almost certainly saw him as such. But in so doing he also seems to showcase a degree of independence as a member of Julian’s inner circle, for the panegyrist remarks that Julian has steeled himself against “yes-men” (adsentatores)—a reference to the courtiers of Constantius—and he implies that he does not count himself as one of those men.56 Interesting in this regard is Mamertinus’s reference to Constantius’s reliance on eunuchs;57 he could have derived this reference from Julian’s “letter” to the Athenians,58 a document with which Mamertinus was probably well acquainted, since he traveled through the Balkans with the emperor 51.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).1.1, 1.3–5, 2.1, 2.4–5, 3.3, 6.3, 15.2–5, 25.1–5, and 31.3–32.3. 52.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).17.1–19.1, 21.1–23.3, 28.1–4, and 29.1–30.2. 53.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).8.1: O facundia potens Graecia! Omnium tuorum principum gesta in maius extollere sola potuisti, sola factorum glorias ad uerborum copiam tetendisti. Mamertinus’s use of sola emphasizes that Greek eloquence at one time had a kind of monopoly on imperial praise-giving and esteem, but not so now, ironically under the Greek Julian. This could indicate that Julian’s choice of a Latin panegyrist to deliver an imperial speech before him in Constantinople surprised many. For a more sarcastic view of O facundia potens Graecia, see Rees 2012b: 213. Cf. Tougher 2020: 126. 54.  Gibbon 1993: 397. 55.  Cf. Plin. Pan. 4.1, who relates that his gratiarum actio is the result of a senatus consultum and is in accordance with utilitas publica, and is offered in the voice of the consul, that is, Pliny, and so is presented as “official.” 56.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.3. 57.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).19.4. 58.  Ep. ad Athen. 272D.

156      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

when the latter wrote it.59 If so, this would indicate that Mamertinus possessed at least an acquaintance with Greek. Further, he casts a critical eye on some of Julian’s intimates: the emperor as a steadfast friend tolerated their vices.60 This is a remarkable statement, although we do not know whom exactly Mamertinus has in mind here.61 Whoever is meant, Mamertinus may be advising the emperor to be wary of those who would take advantage of his favor and those who are not even worthy of it, an omnipresent problem for emperors, who needed to rely on others to help them rule the empire.62 “Restoring” the Res publica: Ciuilitas, Libertas, and Good Government Mamertinus’s speech of praise is notable not only for the close association between rhetorician and emperor that is put on display, but also for its carefully crafted contents, and how it functions as an outline of Julian’s political program. But what exactly was his program? In a revealing scene near the end of his oration, Mamertinus throws into relief Julian’s accessibility and so his ciuilitas by noting the emperor’s close interactions with him and Nevitta.63 He also offers these interactions and remarks as “proofs” of Julian’s trustworthiness and consistency, and “sufficiently clear proofs” of his mild character;64 and Eastern senators would have appreciated such proofs and assurances after civil war. In connection with ciuilitas (which Mamertinus never refers to explicitly), he declares that the former liberty of a bygone age has returned to the advantage of the Roman state.65 Epigraphic evidence empire-wide bears witness to Mamertinus’s sentiments on Julian’s resurrection of old-time libertas.66 But libertas is a vague and abstract word—freedom for whom, and freedom from what? Mamertinus immediately raises the example of Lucius Brutus as consul in 509 BCE, which suggests a restoration of a more republican form of government under Julian, not unlike Mamertinus’s exemplar Pliny,

59.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).6.3. 60.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).26.5. 61.  See Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 429 n. 161. 62.  On the close and complicated relationship between autocracy and bureaucracy, see Hopkins 1978a: 180–81; and C. Kelly 2006: 186–231. 63.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).30.2; Amm. 22.7.1. Cf. Plin. Pan. 48.1–3, for Trajan’s accessibility. See also García Ruiz 2006a: 154; and n. 14 above. 64.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).26.4: fidei constantiaeque documenta; 28.1: indicia mitis et mansuetae mentis . . . ciuilis animi satis clara documenta. 65.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).30.3. See also García Ruiz 2006a: 154. Cf. Pan. Lat. 3(11).6.1, 8.4, 21.1, 29.2, and 32.3, for other references to libertas. Note also Pliny’s framing of Trajan’s ciuilitas alongside the libertas of the Roman people (Pan. 87–88). See n. 67 below as well. 66.  See Conti 2004: 79, no. 28: propagatori libertatis (Pergamon); 147–48, no. 128: restitutori libertatis (Luca); 170–71, no. 167: restitutori libe[r]t[at]is (Casae in Numidia); 172–73, nos. 170 and 171: reddita libertate (Lambaesis). See also Benoist 2009.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    157

who had claimed that under Trajan both principate and freedom coexisted.67 To be sure, Mamertinus, like Ammianus, conceives of libertas as a particular trait of the new administrator under Julian who is able to speak to his emperor openly and honestly.68 And yet presentations of Julian as restitutor libertatis (restorer of freedom) are not limited to him; this title is ascribed to other emperors, interestingly enough, after civil war,69 which in turn suggests that such “restoration” was useful in presenting victors in civil conflicts as improvements over their predecessors, and so helpful in legitimizing their undertakings. With respect to military policy, which would have been of no small concern to an Eastern audience after the recent Persian invasion of Roman Mesopotamia in 359/60,70 Mamertinus also provides some material. He briefly relates how Julian as Caesar under Constantius had recovered Gaul by means of his valor and how barbarian domains were laid low, as if these were new and unheard-of things.71 This short description would have served Julian’s interests in that it reminded the East of his valor and victories in the West and his prospects for success elsewhere. But the panegyrist gives us fewer details here than an epitomator.72 Indeed, Mamertinus’s subsequent remark is not even worthy of the breviarist Eutropius: “By means of a single engagement all Germany was destroyed, by means of a single battle it was subdued.”73 Nonetheless, a general overview of Julian’s military record as Caesar is given some space in the text.74 As Ammianus’s Res gestae makes clear, Mamertinus had much more material he could have provided regarding Julian’s exploits along the Rhine and beyond, but he deliberately chose not to use it, likely, as has been suggested, because the emperor’s victories had been with the Western army and he did not wish it to be overly celebrated over its Eastern counterpart, the support of which he needed in order to consolidate his hold over the East.75 67.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).30.3; cf. Pan. 36.4, 78.3. See also Tac. Agr. 3.1: Nerua Caesar res olim dissociabiles miscuerit, principatum ac libertatem, augeatque cotidie felicitatem temporum Nerua Traianus. 68.  Blockley 2012: 356. Cf. Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 433 n. 180, citing Gutzwiller 1942, ad loc., who considered that a lessened court protocol and religious freedom are meant. The latter dovetails well with what I see as religious neutrality in this panegyric. 69.  E.g., AÉ 1946, 149 (Maxentius); ILS 687 (Constantine); CIL 11.6640 (Magnentius; nomen erasum). 70.  See Amm. 18.4–10, 19.1–9, 20.6–7, 11, 21.6–7, 13; Blockley 1988. 71.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1; cf. Amm. 16.12.67–70. 72.  Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 396 n. 18. 73.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.3: una acie Germania uniuersa deleta est, uno proelio debellatum. Cf. Eutrop. 10.14.1–2: A quo modicis copiis apud Argentoratum, Galliae urbem, ingentes Alamannorum copiae extinctae sunt, rex nobilissimus captus, Galliae restitutae. Multa postea per eundem Iulianum egregia aduersum barbaros gesta sunt summotique ultra Rhenum Germani et finibus suis Romanum imperium restitutum. 74.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3–6. 75.  Blockley 2012: 359.

158      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

W. E. Kaegi reached a similar conclusion about Julian’s relationship with the Eastern army early in his reign, that the emperor apparently was aware of his tenuous hold on the army and thus needed to conciliate it.76 If so, then all this suggests Julian’s sensitivity and responsiveness to Eastern military attitudes, and that he was interested, not in confrontation, but in consensus. We also might go further concerning Julian’s desire not to alienate the Eastern army—the emperor was attempting to communicate reconciliation and to achieve a new equilibrium in the West and the East after civil war, as I argued above. This reconciliation becomes more apparent when we consider that the subsequent military court that Julian convened at Chalcedon contained two prominent Eastern army officers of Constantius, Arbitio and Agilo, and that Julian acquiesced to their demand that Ursulus, a civilian official, be executed, an act the emperor likely regretted.77 Reconciliation came at a price. Moreover, by choosing Chalcedon instead of Constantinople as the site for this military commission, Julian rather prudently was physically and politically distancing the commission’s actions from the imperial court, and so from himself personally to an extent, while no doubt intentionally sparing his native city the kind of turbulent atmosphere that angry soldiers there could create. The emperor had a sense of optics. As we see, Mamertinus dedicates far more space in his text to Julian as civil administrator and reformer, to his benefactions to cities in the Balkans and across the empire, and to the sense of renewal these are said to have brought about.78 Also supporting Julian’s sense of optics, there may be a hint here of his building program at Constantinople, which is said to have been considerable and was probably underway by 1 January 362.79 During his six-month stay in his native city, Julian enlarged the imperial library, constructed a large port west of the Great Palace on the Sea of Marmara, completed the senate house in the Augustaion (see map 3), and almost certainly renovated the Tychaion.80 If Mamertinus subtly 76.  See Kaegi 1967; and n. 174 below. 77.  Lib. Or. 18, 152; Amm. 22.3.1, 22.3.7–8; PLRE 1.28–9, Agilo; 1.94–5, Flavius Arbitio; and 1.988, Ursulus 1. On the military trials at Chalcedon, see Thompson 1969: 73–78; Kaegi 1967: 251–54; Blockley 1972b: 449–50; Bowersock 1978: 66–70; and García Ruiz 2007. See also n. 32 above. 78.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).7.3–10.3, 12.3, 14.1–5. 79.  See Amm. 22.9.2: reliquit Constantinopolim incrementis maximis fultam; and n. 80 below. 80.  See Zos. 3.11.3, who states that Julian “granted a senate to the city [of Constantinople] just as Rome possessed” (ἔδωκε μὲν τῇ πόλει γερουσίαν ἔχειν ὥσπερ τῇ Ῥώμῃ), built a large port (cf. CTh 14.6.5, which refers to diui Iuliani portum), and founded an imperial library; Soc. HE 3.11.4; Soz. HE 5.4.8, for Julian sacrificing to Tyche in Constantinople, likely at the Tychaion, which he would have renovated in keeping with his temple policy. Zosimus errs on the Constantinopolitan Senate, which apparently had been established by Constantius (see Moser 2018: 47–72). However, as Bassett 2007: 90, 92 has observed, Zosimus may be indicating Julian’s completion of the Augustaion Senate, that is, the building. This certainly would be in keeping with Julian’s apparently more republican form of government, whereby he accorded great respect to the Senate of Constantinople, often presided over its

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    159

alludes to such euergetism, it is worthy of panegyric. To be sure, he generally portrays Julian as a workhorse, as an emperor who is generous with his wealth and greedy with his responsibilities and who acts diligently on behalf of the common interest.81 More specifically, we find that Julian had managed a food shortage at Rome successfully in mid-/late 361, an account that Mamertinus no doubt presents to show Julian as a traditional emperor in the mold of Trajan, one who looked after the well-being of his subjects with offerings of grain and liberalitas (generosity).82 But, while Julian is said to have directed his resources to meet this challenge,83 it was likely Maximus—whom he appointed urban prefect of Rome at Naissus in mid-/late 361—who actually distributed the grain wisely and resolved the crisis; in fact, Ammianus singles out Maximus for special praise when he relates that the city never lacked food and did not experience any civil unrest during his prefecture.84 Given that Constantius had cut Julian off from the African grain supply and that Julian’s army was also in need of grain,85 it is likely that Maximus rationed meetings in the senate house, and even delivered speeches there (see Amm. 22.7; Lib. Or. 18, 154; Soc. 3.1.54), whereas, if Libanius is correct, Constantius never attended meetings of the Senate (Lib. Or. 18, 154; cf. Or. 59, 97), and so perhaps did not make completion of the senate house a priority. But Constantius had established some kind of imperial library in Constantinople (Them. Or. 4, 59D–61D; cf. Henck 2001b: 286), so it would be better to see that Julian augmented this, whatever it comprised, or perhaps he in fact did build a new library. On the Tyche of Constantinople, see Lenski 2015. 81.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).10.2: in omnia pecuniam ab imperatore depromi et quoddam uersa uice prouinciis pendi tributum; 12.3: diuitiarum largitor, curarum auarus. 82.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).14.1–5; more below. Cf. Plin. Pan. 27–29; Fears 1981: 916–17, 920–21, for Trajan’s liberalitas. On imperial liberalitas, see Noreña 2011a: 82–92; and Manders 2012: 165–69. 83.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).14.2; cf. Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 286B, for millions of measures of grain that Constantius had ordered to be collected in Raetia and the Cottian Alps and that Julian confiscated for his use. 84.  Amm. 21.12.24; PLRE 1.582, Maximus 17. Ammianus opines that Avianius Symmachus was the better man (potiore), and so should have been appointed over Maximus. However, Maximus’s uncle was Vulcacius Rufinus (PLRE 1.782–83, Vulcacius Rufinus 25), who had been consul prior in 347 and had served long tenures as praetorian prefect of various prefectures, such as Italy, Illyricum, and Gaul, under both Constans and Constantius. Such a career indicates very close ties to the Constantinian dynasty (see chapter 1, n. 156). Indeed, Vulcacius Rufinus was also the maternal uncle of Gallus Caesar. Thus, in selecting Maximus for urban prefect of Rome, Julian was prudently maintaining or renewing an important dynastic relationship with an illustrious Italian senatorial family, especially one whose support Julian would have needed in order to consolidate his control of Rome and Italy during civil war, whereas the family of Symmachus apparently was not as well connected to the dynasty and perhaps was less vital to Julian’s concerns at this time. 85.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).14.1, 5; Amm. 21.7.2–5; Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 414 n. 91. Mamertinus does not explicitly state that Rome’s food shortage in late 361 was the result of a ceasing or easing of African grain shipments to the city, but he implies it. Much like Ammianus, who implies that agents of Constantius sought to control Africa so as to control and restrict its grain: for what other purpose did Gaudentius and Cretio fortify the province against Julian, and why did troops loyal to Julian in Sicily remain ready to cross over into Africa? If Rome was still being fed by Africa, and Julian procured grain for his army

160      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

the grain that Julian was able to send him until Constantius’s death allowed the resumption or increase of African grain shipments to Rome.86 (However Julian and his urban prefect managed to resolve Rome’s food shortage, its resolution would have encouraged the emperor in his ability to resolve another food shortage at Antioch in late 362.) Mamertinus’s discussion of the food shortage at Rome and its resolution projects the view that Julian was a responsible emperor and civic manager, one who was responsive to the needs of his subjects, an image that Julian himself conveys in some of his Eastern letters.87 Mamertinus anchors Julian’s right to rule not on his military successes in the West in particular, mention of which is reduced to a few brief sentences, as we have seen above, but on the emperor’s possession of moral qualities in a general sense, which are given a wider field of expression.88 Mamertinus early on outlines Julian’s virtues and qualifications for the imperial office: aequitas (equity), temperantia (self-control), fortitudo (courage), and prouidentia (foresight).89 And in a later passage, we find iustitia (justice), fortitudo, temperantia, and prudentia (good sense/ wisdom)—the four cardinal virtues—implicitly connected with Julian.90 This list is a slightly modified version of what had been said about the virtues of emperors such as Maximian and Constantine,91 which suggests that Mamertinus was subtly presenting Julian as an improvement over his predecessors, who were not explicitly said to possess aequitas. This virtue is notably ascribed to Julian, who, conversely, is not said to have pietas (dutiful conduct/religiousness), which I will discuss further below. The citing of aequitas and its emphatic place at the head of the above virtues is suggestive of its importance; and of Julian’s interest in expressing traditional qualities of good rulership, and so his interest in consensus.92 Furthermore, from other Western provinces that he did control, then there would have been no immediate need for either emperor to control Africa, unless Constantius was preparing for a civil war that could last several years. Both Mamertinus’s and Ammianus’s lack of explicit testimony here (and elsewhere) can be explained by a desire to protect Julian’s reputation in 362 and for posterity. 86.  See also Pan. Lat. 3(11).8.4: principem nostrum alta puppe sublimem non per cuiuscemodi agros frumenta spargentem, for Julian’s “scattering” of grain to cities in the Balkans; and n. 83 above. 87.  E.g., Jul. Ep. ad Alex. (21 Wright, 60 Bidez), Ep. ad Bostr. (41 Wright, 114 Bidez), and Ep. 40 Wright (115 Bidez). See also chapter 5. 88.  Blockley 2012: 349, 354; Rees 1998: 92–93. 89.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).5.4. On prouidentia and other virtues in Mamertinus’s panegyric, see Seager 1984: 155–58. On prouidentia as an imperial virtue previously, see Noreña 2011a: 92–99; and Manders 2012: 162–65. 90.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.4. 91.  Cf. Pan. Lat. 11(3).19.2, for Maximian’s possession of fortitudo, continentia, iustitia, and sapientia, as well as pietas and felicitas; and 7(6).3.4–5.3, in which Constantine is shown in possession of all four cardinal virtues in a rather lengthy section. See Charlesworth 1937 and 1943, and Wallace-Hadrill 1981, for classic articles on the emperor’s virtues. See also Noreña 2011a: 62–100, for the five core virtues; and chapter. 1. 92.  On aequitas and its importance as an imperial virtue, see Noreña 2011a: 63–71; and Manders 2012: 182–85.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    161

by presenting Julian’s concern for his subjects at Rome and resolution of the food shortage there, a situation that had occurred mere months before 1 January 362, Mamertinus manages to illustrate his virtuous emperor in action, and thus what Eastern subjects could expect from Julian; indeed, in the very same passage, the panegyrist stresses Julian’s high regard for Constantinople as the city of his birth when he states that the emperor was pleased that a grain shipment from Africa had reached the city even though it was still under Constantius’s control.93 In this way, both Rome and Constantinople are linked with Julian, and Mamertinus’s presentation of them can be seen as part of an effort to create a new consensus and equilibrium between the West and the East under one emperor.94 The rhetorician-consul also evokes the republican past through various exempla to continue to broadcast what can be expected from Julian’s nascent government,95 and in striking self-promotion he inserts himself directly into his speech by name.96 Mamertinus tells us about the orator L. Licinius Crassus and his father-in-law, the augur and jurist Q. Mucius Scaevola, and the methods that Crassus and those like him needed to utilize in republican Rome to get elected to office.97 Mamertinus employs Crassus as an example of how the republican state had functioned, using himself as an exemplum for how Roman citizens now come to office under Julian as part of a new and improved state.98 “Restoration” (restitutio) is a common theme in the Latin panegyrics,99 as is its opposite, neglect, but Mamertinus adduces numerous trappings of a new political order in 362. He claims repeatedly that the consulship, contrary to practice under Constantius, came to him unsought,100 and in this we may believe him; he states that he gained his high office as a “divine favor,”101 exploiting the dual sense of munus as both favor

93.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).14.5–6. 94.  Cf. Rees 2012b: 215, who sees an “insistence on Rome, itself tantamount to a downplaying of Constantinople.” But Mamertinus’s position and approach are more balanced, and were anticipated by Themistius, who managed to praise both Rome and Constantinople at Rome and who even asked Constantius for further honors for his Eastern metropolis skillfully in 357 (Or. 3); cf. Vanderspoel 2012: 225–34; and chapter 2. 95.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).15.1–22.5. 96.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).17.4: Claudi Mamertine. 97.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).16. 98.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).15.1: in nouum ac florentem statum re publica restituta. 99.  For various uses of restituta, see Pan. Lat. 8(5).1.4, 3.3, 17.2, 18.4, 9(4).18.4, 7(6).10.4, 6(7).22.7, and 12(9).1.1. Some of these references are made with respect to a province or a frontier zone, but Mamertinus’s use of res publica restituta closely parallels panegyric 12(9) to Constantine (1.1). See also ILS 425, for rem publicam restitutam on the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus at Rome, which may derive from a Latin panegyric to him. 100.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).16.3–4, 17.2, 18.5. 101.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).16.4: diuinum . . . munus.

162      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

and obligation.102 In short, he is telling us that he owes the emperor for this benefaction and that he plans to carry out his duties as a consul. In so doing, the panegyrist puts on full display the kind of interaction that has been noted as illustrating a code of reciprocity between an emperor and one of his subjects, in which the distribution and acceptance of an honor enhances the public standing of both parties.103 Mamertinus’s insertion of himself by name into his speech is also unique in the Latin panegyrics, an insertion that can only have further stressed his close association with Julian, since such a break with protocol was uncommon.104 The rhetorician admits that he had desired the consulship, when the state was in the power of other emperors (the plural implies Constantius and Constans), but that he had been lacking in resources and did not know how to go about seeking favor.105 This had been standard practice in Crassus and Scaevola’s time and later when Aulus Gabinius sought the consulship,106 when the comitia centuriata (Centuriate Assembly) elected officials.107 Mamertinus is the first among the extant Latin panegyrists to mention the comitia centuriata and to link it with his emperor’s reign in order to connect present times with a freer past, that is, with republican libertas. This use of the comitia centuriata as a rhetorical device worked well enough that it would be borrowed by Symmachus in his Oration 1 to Valentinian ca. 368,108 and perhaps alluded to in his Oration 4 on his father, Avianius, in 376,109 by Ausonius for his own Gratiarum actio to Gratian after the consular “elections” at Sirmium in 379,110 and by Pacatus in his panegyric to Theodosius at Rome in 389 after the emperor’s defeat of Magnus Maximus.111 However, in the Late Republic, liberty and corruption often went hand in hand. Mamertinus tells us that this was the way of things and that even in ancient times the Campus Martius was infamous for bribery.112 Mamertinus uses “even” (etiam) to stress how far back such corruption went because it was still prevalent until 102.  See also Pan. Lat. 3(11).1.1. 103.  See Lendon 1997: 106, 155. 104.  Nixon and Rodgers (2015) and other scholars have not commented on this instance of selfpromotion. Not even Ausonius inserts himself by name into his Gratiarum actio to Gratian. 105.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).17.3. 106.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).16, 19.2. 107.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).19.1. 108.  Or. 1, 9; PLRE 1.865–70, Q. Aurelius Symmachus signo Eusebius 4. 109.  Or. 4, 6. I am grateful to Robert Chenault for his suggestion that Mamertinus’s influence also may be evident in Symm. Or. 4, in which Symmachus alludes to the comitia centuriata and advances the notion that bribery and campaigning for public office under Gratian is unnecessary. In fact, Mamertinus’s message that no good men need campaign for office because Julian will seek them out finds a closer thematic parallel in Or. 4. 110.  Grat. act. 9.42. 111.  Pan. Lat. 2(12).3.6; see Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 451 n. 11. 112.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).19.1: etiam illis priscis temporibus multorum ambitu fuit Campus infamis.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    163

recent times, when the state was in the power of other emperors, that is, under Constantius and Constans, but under Constantius in particular. That Mamertinus has Constantius in mind is evident from the panegyrist’s references to recent times,113 when, we are told, those who sought office and acquired favor from the emperor did so through foul arts and then unremitting compliance and gifts, and they also had to canvass courtiers and eunuchs at the imperial court.114 The panegyrist thus makes a broad and not so subtle dig at the previous government under Constantius, which he indicts as having had all the corruption but none of the liberty of republican Rome. Conversely, while Mamertinus rejects the free but corrupt elections of the past, by raising them he paints Julian’s nascent government free but not corrupt. As we shall see below, another motive behind all this republican rhetoric was to announce new conditions of administrative promotion, to raise the hopes of many prospective office-seekers who were not wealthy or well connected politically but who wished to participate in the running of the empire. In essence it was a declaration that Rome was “under new management.” It is here that we might return to what Mamertinus recounted about Julian’s tenure as Caesar and consider how it presents the emperor’s actions in Gaul as anticipating his new administration as Augustus empire-wide. When Gaul is mentioned in a nonmilitary matter, it is to underscore its corrupt governors prior to Julian’s arrival as Caesar and how the latter was the right man to put an end to their peculation.115 But Mamertinus goes further than this. He does not simply say that Julian ended their corruption, but that Julian restored legal rights to Roman citizens.116 This seemingly innocuous statement supports what is to follow, namely, that Julian looked to the republican past as a model to emulate and as an example to communicate to his subjects what they could expect from his new administration: that it would be more responsive. Indeed, Mamertinus emphasizes the emperor’s ciuilitas in several places with personal references to Julian, noting his civil disposition and that he became even more civil after his accession, acting and doing things as becomes a citizen.117 Looking at how Julian is presented and the traits Mamertinus mentions, R. C. Blockley has noted that the panegyrist here claims ciuilitas or “fellow citizen status” for the emperor.118 While the adjective 113.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).19.3: paulo ante. 114.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).19.3–4. 115.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.2; cf. 1.4. 116.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.7: ciuibus iura restituat. But what rights (iura) is Mamertinus referring to? Considering Julian’s well-known penchant for dispensing justice in person, several examples of which are preserved by Ammianus, one of these rights would appear to be a Roman citizen’s right of appeal to the emperor (appellatio ad Caesarem). 117.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).27.3: ciuilior; 28.1: ciuilis animi; 31.1: ea quae tu . . . ciuiliter facis. 118.  Blockley 2012: 355. See Pan. Lat. 3(11).12, 28–29, 30. On ciuilitas in the fourth century, see Scivoletto 1970. See also n. 14 above.

164      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

ciuilis became an ethical term denoting the good behavior and personality of an emperor,119 one aspect of that good behavior was deference to the Senate and the senatorial order, as has also been noted.120 Mamertinus’s emphasis on ciuilitas is consistent with his depiction of moral qualities as the basis for Julian’s right to rule.121 As variously applied to the emperor by his rhetorician-consul, ciuilitas and ciuilis also represent Julian’s accessibility and responsiveness to his administrators and subjects, and this description of his public behavior and personality casts him squarely as a ciuilis princeps. Additionally, we are told that under Constantius there was no interest in the fine arts,122 military service was rejected by the most noble as dirty and unworthy of a freeman,123 the study of law was considered the profession of freedmen,124 and the skill in oratory went unappreciated.125 Under Constantius, office-seekers approached the emperor and his court to enrich themselves. Their zeal for accumulating wealth is presented in sharp contrast to their neglect of the fine arts.126 The elite sought only to increase their prestige by increasing their wealth and to attain office through flattery.127 Even philosophy, so closely associated with Constantius by Themistius, had suffered.128 To be sure, this picture of civil life during 119.  Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 43. 120.  Scivoletto 1970: 24–30; Wallace-Hadrill 1982: 45–46; Rees 1998: 93; García Ruiz 2013b: 208–10. 121.  See n. 91 above. 122.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).20.1. This is, of course, not quite true, as Henck 2001a and Van Hoof 2013 variously have shown; see chapter 1. However, Mamertinus is presenting an image of Constantius in relation to Julian, who far exceeded his cousin in learning and who seems to have promoted more learned men, such as Mamertinus, to high office. Therefore, Constantius is said not to have cared for the fine arts by comparison. See also Lib. Or. 18, 158; and n. 128 below. 123.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).20.1. The image presented here is also reminiscent of what Ammianus famously says about many among the elite in Rome, that they preferred to languish in idleness over engaging in serious matters (14.6.18). 124.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).20.1. 125.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).20.2; cf. Lib. Or. 18, 158. 126.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).20.3. 127.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).20.3–4. 128.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).23.4. Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 425 n. 142 rightly compare Mamertinus’s words here to those of Themistius, who would praise Jovian for being a great promoter of philosophy as emperor, and more so than either Constantius or Julian (Or. 5, 63C). In my view, Themistius’s approach to Jovian indicates that criticism of an emperor’s predecessors for their relative failure to appreciate philosophy properly was something of a panegyrical trope. Indeed, criticizing an emperor’s predecessors was an established method that allowed a panegyrist to praise the current holder of the office by comparison (e.g., Plin. Pan. 53.6). And yet Mamertinus’s criticism of philosophy under Constantius is more pointed than Themistius’s. Curious is the statement tu Philosophiam paulo ante suspectam ac non solum spoliatam honoribus sed accusatam ac ream non modo iudicio liberasti, since Constantius is known to have promoted many learned men with interests in philosophy, such as Julian himself. It would seem that Mamertinus has some specific instances in mind. Perhaps Constantius had charged some learned men with some kind of malfeasance, in office or otherwise, or simply recalled them after civil war with

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    165

Constantius’s reign is polemical and generalized, but it is presented as a contrast to the new civil life under Julian. Indeed, Mamertinus’s comments here may well have influenced Eastern epigraphic tributes to Julian as magister (master) and princeps philosophiae (leader of philosophy).129 Mamertinus presents himself as proof of this new civic atmosphere, as an orator whose eloquence Julian has not only appreciated but also rewarded with the consulship. The rhetorician-consul underlines this change in emperor and atmosphere with an emphatic “But now” (At nunc), stressing that now, under Julian, it is not necessary for those seeking offices, including provincial governorships, tribuneships, prefectures, and the consulship, to employ money and flattery to gain an appointment.130 In fact, the emperor, we are told, proactively rewarded men with offices who had not sought them to begin with, men of moral worth.131 Mamertinus declares, “The greatest emperor shall come to you and he will demand that you take hold of the state.”132 Notably, his use of flagitare, “to demand,”133 is the only instance where he ascribes such zeal to the emperor, and he does so to stress Julian’s commitment to creating a new consensus, and to communicate that officeholders under Julian will have real power and authority in the res publica (Roman state); in fact, the new consensus need not exclude Constantius’s former supporters. Interestingly, in Mamertinus’s description this new kind of officeholder resembles Julian in appearance.134 The panegyrist may be suggesting that virtue accompanies such an appearance, while finery embodies the opposite. The suggestion coincides with and perhaps helps to explain the emperor’s reduction of the number of palace attendants.135 Mamertinus offers the view that those men who share in the emperor’s friendship have determined that the greatest resources lie in the health of the state and in glorious praise of their emperor,136 words that no doubt reflect Mamertinus Julian appeared imminent, learned men who were known (or potential) supporters of Julian. Constantius’s apparent recall of Flavius Sallustius, one of Julian’s advisers in Gaul and perhaps the author of On the Gods and the World, comes to mind. See also nn. 27 and 122 above. 129.  See Conti 2004: 77–79, nos. 26, 27, and 28; 80, no. 30; and 83–84, no. 34. On Julian as emperor and philosopher, see Bringmann 2008. For philosophy in Julian’s network of letters, see Luchner 2008. 130.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.1. Cf. Barnes 1985, for the case of Abinnaeus under Constantius; and n. 138 below. 131.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.4–5, 25.3. 132.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.4: ad te maximus imperator accedet et ut capessas rem publicam flagitabit. 133.  See OLD, s.v. flagito, 3a. 134.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.2: aliud quoddam hominum genus . . . rude (ut urbanis istis uidetur), parum come, subrusticum; Blockley 2012: 355. Julian’s self-description (Misop. 339B–D) is indeed similar. See also Pan. Lat. 3(11).13.3. 135.  Amm. 22.4. Cf. Wienand 2016: 358–59, who sees Julian “redefining the established criteria for social success and rank within the court society” (359). 136.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.2.

166      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

himself but also advance the notion of the kind of citizen Julian is likely to promote to high office: loyal, humble, and educated men, as if these had been lacking under Constantius. But the rhetorician notes that worthy office-seekers— militarily successful, variously learned, and energetic and upright men—once admitted into Julian’s friendship, will still be enriched by the emperor with money, wealth, and offices.137 Thus, the incentives for individuals to continue seeking imperial favor still existed. If Mamertinus sincerely believed in such statements as above, that Julian’s accession heralded complete political change and improvement over Constantius, then he would have been somewhat disappointed by subsequent events with respect to office-seeking, for venal suffragium (sale of political influence to those seeking public office) still persisted under Julian, although it was regulated to an extent; under Julian, venal suffragium and promotion based on merit were not mutually exclusive.138 A difference between rhetoric and reality, to be sure, but one that serves to underscore the emperor’s acquiescence to aspects of the existing order upon which compromise could be reached and consensus created, not unlike the trials at Chalcedon. To authenticate further all that he has spoken regarding the emperor and to emphasize their close relationship and his position of high favor, Mamertinus states near the conclusion of his oration that, on the very day on which he was to deliver his speech, he and his fellow consul, Nevitta, went to the Great Palace of Constantinople to pay their respects to Julian, who received Mamertinus with great affection in the form of a coveted kiss and by offering him his right hand, which were distinct marks of honor.139 One commentator recently has noted how this scene mirrors Trajan’s behavior in a similar setting in Pliny’s Panegyricus.140 Mamertinus is no doubt advancing an image of Julian in keeping with that of Trajan and the latter’s manner of personal rule. We should recall that principate and freedom are said to have coexisted during Trajan’s reign.141 Mamertinus’s portrayal, 137.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).25.3–5. Cf. Wienand 2016: 359–64. I see Julian desiring to shape the pool of potential office-seekers in his image, a pool that does not exclude many of Constantius’s former supporters. 138.  See Goffart 1970; Barnes 1974; and Schmidt-Hofner 2020: 148–49. As Barnes 1974: 290–91 has observed, Julian’s law did not make venal suffragium and promotion by merit mutually exclusive. A person would pay for access to the emperor to have their case heard by him, and the emperor in turn decided the case on its merits. In support of this view, note what Ammianus says about Julian’s treatment of a man who had used his imperial belt (cinctum) to gain access to the palace and to the emperor so that he could plead his case against a woman: the man merely used his belt to gain access, but he, Julian, would still decide the case on its merits (22.10.5). On suffragium under Constantius, see Vogler 1979: 244–52. On purchasing power in the later Roman Empire, see C. Kelly 2006: 138–85, 211– 13, esp. 158–65 and 211–12 and n. 79, for the sale of offices. 139.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).28.1–4. 140.  García Ruiz 2013b: 207–8. 141.  See n. 67 above.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    167

therefore, has the effect of introducing Julian’s notion of imperial libertas and manner of rule to those listening to his panegyric, that is, to an Eastern audience more accustomed to Hellenistic notions of rulership, and of contrasting it with that of his immediate predecessor, who was not known for such displays of accessibility and favor.142 The rhetorician-consul insists on depicting Julian as an accessible emperor who is almost “one of us,” that is, a fellow citizen, just as Pliny had with Trajan.143 Mamertinus thus places the ciuilitas mantle of Trajan on Julian to portray  him as a worthy successor of that emperor. This unspoken sunkrisis (comparison) would help to explain Mamertinus’s exposition of Julian’s handling of a grain shortage at Rome, as we discussed above, which the emperor is said to have resolved in exemplary fashion, though we are not told how exactly;144 this focus mirrors Pliny’s similar exposition of Trajan’s exemplary handling of a famine in Egypt.145 In each case, the emperor is shown displaying concern for his subjects and fellow citizens, and so as fully aware of his responsibilities, and this demonstration of his effectiveness in the imperial office would certainly have implications for his legitimacy in occupying it. Mamertinus does criticize Constantius and his regime in several places; but that criticism falls short of Pliny’s lampooning of Domitian, for Constantius is still described as divine, which reflects his official apotheosis.146 Undoubtedly, the latter was partly due to Julian’s legitimacy as sole Augustus resting on his being the proper successor of Constantius, whom Mamertinus also thrice describes as Julian’s imperial frater (brother),147 a traditional term of address that suggests that the panegyrist was thinking of 360–361, when both emperors ruled as fellow Augusti.148

142.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).30.3. 143.  Pan. 2.4: unum ille se ex nobis . . . putat. 144.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).14.1–2. 145.  Pan. 31.1–32.4; cf. Prisc. Pan. Anast., lines 206–17. 146.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.2: diuus Constantius. See also Eutrop. 10.15.2: meruitque inter Diuos referri. 147.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1, 5.2, 27.4. 148.  See fig. 3; and Bowersock 1978: 53–54, for Julian’s treatment of Constantius as his Augustan equal in 360–361. Frater was a traditional term of address between members of the imperial college going back to Diocletian and Maximian in 289 (see Kolb 2001: 27–29; Rees 2002: 52–53; and now Waldron 2022: 38–69), and if Ammianus is to be believed, this practice continued between Constantius and Julian in the latter’s promotion to Caesar in late 355 (see Rees 2002: 52–53). But does Ammianus’s use of frater at 15.8.12 reflect contemporary usage or post-Constantian usage that was retrojected? Omissi 2018: 212–13 argues that Mamertinus used frater in place of pater so as to place Julian and Constantius on an equal footing and thus to avoid any charge that Julian had disobeyed Constantius in Gaul and so usurped. Given Constantius’s restrictions on Julian as Caesar early on, we should view their relationship as that of pater/filius at first, though this would have begun to change in 357. Julian himself frames his relationship with Constantius while Caesar as that of father and son (Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 280D; cf. Amm. 16.5.3).

168      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

In addition to this depiction of Constantius, Mamertinus’s skillful portrayal of Julian overall, I contend, reflects and even projects the latter’s interest in building a new consensus, of which some degree of confrontation was a part, although this confrontation has been overstated.149 While the rhetorician’s comments on corruption and greed under Constantius are confrontational to an extent, the corruption and greed of earlier governments are topoi (common themes) of panegyric.150 Further, Mamertinus traces these vices back to the republican period,151 and so is interested in showing continuity until Julian. Writing less than two years before Mamertinus, Aurelius Victor also found fault with many of Constantius’s governors and officials,152 and Victor’s account of this emperor is largely panegyrical; in fact, he produced it while Constantius was still alive.153 Julian through his panegyrist needed to walk a fine line regarding Constantius: he had to criticize the posture of his cousin and predecessor in 361, to justify his brief civil war against him, while also linking himself positively to the same man, on whose position his legitimacy partly depended.154 And the rhetorician’s speech manages to walk that line. Moreover, senators of Constantinople could hardly have expected Mamertinus’s panegyric before Julian and them to portray some individuals from their side, the losing side, in any other way. Levels of confrontation often followed civil war, when the victor outlined a new political order, and Julian’s conflict with the Eastern elite pales by comparison with the actions of his immediate predecessors.155 In fact, the choice of venue for Mamertinus’s oration, the senate house, is suggestive of Julian’s interest in cooperation. And Mamertinus, we should recall, was a senator himself,

149.  Cf. Wienand 2016: 348, 354–55, and 358–59. Mamertinus is certainly critical of Constantius’s courtiers and many of his appointees, but he is careful not to condemn them all (cf. Wienand 2016: 354). And while Mamertinus is rather vague about which men and which provinces he is referring to (19.5), it seems likely that he is referring to individuals with whom he was acquainted, that is, to those who governed Gaul prior to Julian’s arrival and shortly afterward (4.2), when the Caesar began to assert himself as a chief administrator. Mamertinus’s portrayal of Constantius’s appointees is consistent with that of Aurelius Victor. See also nn. 4, 32, 34, and 135 above and n. 150 below; and Omissi 2018: 209–19. 150.  E.g, Plin. Pan. 34–35; Pan. Lat. 6(7).16.5, 12(9).3.5, 2(12).26. See also Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 25, who note that the rivals of emperors were often referred to as “robbers” and other derogatory terms in panegyrics. Mamertinus is careful not to describe Constantius himself as such; rather he describes the system over which Constantius presided as largely corrupt. Furthermore, such a careful representation is also found in what Mamertinus relates about the poor relations between Constantius and Julian: while a degree of jealousy is laid at Constantius’s feet (Pan. Lat. 3[11].3.1), greater attention is paid to those around Constantius at court as responsible for his enmity toward his junior colleague (Pan. Lat. 3[11].4.3–5.2). 151.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).19.1–2. 152.  Aur. Vict. Caes. 42.24–25. 153.  See Nixon 1991: 119–25. Cf. Starr 1956: 582 n. 27; Bird 1994: 206. 154.  Cf. MacCormack 1975: 162–63. 155.  See nn. 159 and 162 below; and Szidat 2010: 322–40.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    169

one who had referred to this venue reverentially early on.156 It is in this light that we should read his statement that the emperor had restored the Senate’s former prestige and heaped new honor upon it, though he does not tell us how Julian did so.157 Such restoration speaks to the emperor’s cooperation with the Senate of Constantinople, and it had a close precedent in an anonymous panegyrist’s use of similar language to describe Constantine’s actions toward the Senate of Rome shortly after his defeat of his brother-in-law Maxentius,158 whose memory Constantine assaulted as a tyrant while seeking reconciliation with senators.159 As noted above, Julian could not afford to attack Constantius’s memory in this way; but he could take aim at some of his civil administrators, whose replacement would help to mark the advent of a new political order. Indeed, Mamertinus explicitly connects the dawn of this new era with Julian’s selection of high officials.160 As a result, it seems that Mamertinus carefully delineates his comments within the text of his speech: (qualified) respect for Constantius, criticism for some of Constantius’s administrative appointees (most of whom were not senators), specifically governors of Western provinces,161 and praise for the senatorial order (of which Mamertinus was now a part), specifically the Senate of Constantinople and presumably that of Rome as well. Here we might note Constantius’s conduct in 337, when he honored Constantine’s memory and yet rejected his father’s succession plans and removed many of his appointees.162 Julian needed a panegyric in early 362 that could encourage his supporters and mollify his recent opponents, and Mamertinus’s oration reflects this balancing act. Confrontation in one area was balanced by cooperation elsewhere, as in attitudes toward the Senate and toward religion. One commentator has failed to note that the “ominous portrait of a degenerate state” that Mamertinus paints is an allusion to Gaul and not to the empire as a whole.163 While Mamertinus’s remarks on the corruption of Constantius’s officials are an exaggeration, it would be better to see the panegyrist making such remarks 156.  See n. 50 above. 157.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).24.5. Cf. CTh 9.2.1, 11.23.2; Ensslin 1923: 122–24; Pack 1986: 128–30; and Brendel 2017: 95–97, 295–97. 158.  Pan. Lat. 12(9).20.1: senatui auctoritatem pristinam reddidisti. Other parallels suggest that Mamertinus used this panegyric to Constantine as one of his models. 159.  See Pan. Lat. 12(9).3.5–7, 4.3–4; CIL 6.1139 = ILS 694, for the Arch of Constantine, where Maxentius is alluded to as a tyrannus; and Salzman 2016. 160.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).15.1. 161.  See n. 149 above. 162.  See Burgess 2008; and Marcos 2014: 770–1. After orchestrating the massacre of Dalmatius Caesar and other members of the imperial family, Constantius implemented a damnatio memoriae against them (on this memory sanction, see H. I. Flower 2006 and Omissi 2016). This is not how Julian treated Constantius’s memory. 163.  See Wienand 2016: 362. Cf. Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 394 n. 8, 398 n. 25, 399 nn. 28 and 29, and 400 n. 33.

170      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

in order to build on Julian’s public record of success as chief administrator of Gaul. Indeed, the rhetorician refers to Julian’s sound administration of Gaul as Caesar compared to what the emperor initially had found upon his arrival there under Constantius’s appointees, under “nefarious robbers” (nefariis latronibus).164 This contrast would have served to communicate to the empire’s Eastern subjects that Julian’s Western policies, his economic relief and administrative uprightness, could and would be replicated empire-wide. To be sure, the Constantinopolitan elite would not have welcomed Mamertinus’s derogatory description of Constantius’s men, but there were also Westerners in attendance who would not have welcomed a positive portrayal of these same men either, especially after civil war. Nor should we forget that Mamertinus’s hostile comments against Constantius’s officials were made shortly after or even during the military trials at Chalcedon,165 where two of Constantius’s Eastern generals sat on the commission that condemned many of Constantius’s civilian officials, perhaps some of the very ones whom Mamertinus describes in his speech. Thus, like Aurelius Victor, Mamertinus was not alone in his opinion of some of Constantius’s administrators, and so his negative portrayal of these in a panegyric would not have come as a surprise; it was all part of the spectacle and what Julian felt the occasion required to help him to consolidate support for his nascent government. Promoting Divinity, Avoiding Religion As has been argued above, Mamertinus was a kind of official spokesman for Julian and his administration, a position that the panegyrist highlights with numerous references to his close relationship with the emperor and to the high offices he holds (and held) because of his favor. Mamertinus’s imperial speech is also revealing for how it treats Julian’s religious policy: it appears to ignore it altogether. But this abstention from religion, I argue, was the policy.166 In contrast to the Latin panegyrics of his predecessors, Mamertinus’s oration to Julian is remarkably neutral in the religious sphere in many respects, a neutrality that Julian must have desired. There are no indications of anything like Jovian or Herculian ideology,167 164.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.2–3; cf. 1.4. See also nn. 149 and 150 above. 165.  See n. 77 above. A key piece of evidence for dating these trials at Chalcedon is Julian’s letter to a Hermogenes (Jul. Ep. 13 Wright [33 Bidez]; PLRE 1.423–24, Hermogenes 4), which Wright dated to December 361. Here Julian notes that he had appointed a court, but we do not know how long it took to convene or how long it remained active; cf. Ensslin 1923: 116–18, who argues for late December 361 to early January 362. 166.  On Julian’s religious policy, see Marcos 2019a: 538–39; Wiemer 2020, who nonetheless omits the panegyrics; and Schmidt-Hofner 2020: 155–62, esp. 155–60, who concludes that Julian developed and implemented new religious policy successively case by case and step by step. 167.  E.g., Pan. Lat. 10(2).1.3, 4.1–2, 11(3).10.5–11.1, 14.2–4. On this Tetrarchic ideology, see Kolb 2001: 25–58; and now Waldron 2022: 38–41, 67–68.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    171

no invocations of any gods by name, no hints of solar monotheism (or henotheism),168 no allusions to edicts of toleration or hints that they were even necessary,169 no explicit references to the emperor’s numen (divine majesty) or even to his pietas,170 as we have already noted above. These omissions are deliberate, and they must reflect the emperor’s wish to be mindful of the different beliefs of his subjects during this early and fragile stage after entering Constantinople. Mamertinus does state, rather vaguely, that festival days were celebrated and that old and new ones were consecrated in honor of the emperor.171 But these could refer to any number of occasions, and they are not given a particularly overt religious character apart from their purpose in honoring Julian upon his accession, which would have seemed unobjectionable. The populace of Constantinople and other cities would have been eager to learn about the intentions of their new and only Augustus, and so Mamertinus’s messages presumably made their way out of the senate house in the Augustaion to the Hippodrome, the Forum of Constantine (see map 3), and beyond through those who attended the delivery of his oration. In addition to senators, high officials of the new regime, and local and regional elites, there were soldiers in attendance who could share what they saw and heard with members of the public who were not fortunate enough to be a part of the audience. In fact, Mamertinus refers to the military men around Julian and their support for him in strong terms that unsurprisingly underscore their status as a key constituency.172 All this is in keeping with the political and military iconography and messages on Julian’s coinage issued empire-wide,173 which should be traced back to the emperor’s interest in early 362 in creating consensus for his new government and in promoting cooperation between sovereign and subjects in areas of mutual agreement, and hence Julian’s celebrated ciuilitas in Mamertinus’s speech. For example, the emperor’s gold coin issues (solidi) from the mint at Constantinople, 168.  See Pan. Lat. 6(7).21.3–4; Ware 2021: 314–16, 321–27. For samples of the vast literature on this, see Nixon and Rodgers 2015: 248–49 nn. 91 and 92; and Drake 2009. 169.  These edicts have not survived; see Jul. ELF 45 (Bidez and Cumont 1922) and Bidez 1965: 225–35. 170.  E.g., Pan. Lat. 10(2).1.1, 6(7).22.6, 23.3, for Maximian’s numen; 8(5).19.1, for Constantius’s numen; 12(9).5.5, 19.1, for that of Constantine. See also Pan. Lat. 11(3).6.1, 6.7, where Maximian’s piety toward the gods is celebrated. It should be noted that Mamertinus’s sole reference to numen at 3.2 is not linked explicitly to Julian but is invoked by the panegyrist in order to emphasize the veracity of what he tells us about the emperor. On pietas as an expansive imperial ideal, see Noreña 2011a: 71–77. See also Manders 2012: 178–82. 171.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).9.4: dies festos et celebrari ueteres et nouos in honorem principis consecrari. On the imperial cult and its celebration in the Codex-Calendar or Chronograph of 354, see Salzman 1990: 131–46. 172.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).24.4–7, 25.3. 173.  See Webb 1910; Elmer 1937; Kent 1959 and 1981; Gilliard 1964; Arce 1984: 181–214; López Sánchez 2012; Guidetti 2015; and García Ruiz 2018.

172      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

figure 5 . Julian II. Constantinople, solidus, 361–363 CE. Obverse: FL CL IVLIANVS P P

AVG. Reverse: VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANORVM. RIC 8.462.157. Courtesy of Edward J. Waddell, Ltd.

beginning in early 362, show him advertising the valor of Roman armies (VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANORVM)—Romans plural, so the West and the East united— on the reverse, where their loyalty to the emperor after civil war is a part of the subtext (fig. 5).174 By late 362, when Julian resided at Antioch, a well-known bronze coin type also appeared empire-wide advertising state security (SECVRITAS REI PVB[LICAE]) on the reverse and featuring a bull (fig. 6), the interpretation of which has been controversial and most often associated with the emperor’s religious policy.175 One commentator, however, has offered a nuanced and undoubtedly more correct way to interpret this type, whereby the bull represents Julian as leader while also allowing for the possibility that multiple messages may have been intended or perceived.176 In my view, on the other hand, the military aspect of the bull image is 174.  See Kent 1959: 114–15, and 1981; Guidetti 2015: 21–23; and García Ruiz 2018: 211–15. Cf. chapter 3, n. 157, for Julian’s earlier solidi from Thessalonica. On imperial uirtus as advertised on third-century coinage, see Manders 2012: 169–78. 175.  E.g., Kent 1954; Szidat 1981; Vanderspoel 1998; Woods 2000; and Tougher 2004. On securitas rei publicae, see Blockley 1992: 106–7. See also nn. 176 and 177 below. On imperial securitas on thirdcentury coinage, see Manders 2012: 205–11. 176.  Tougher 2004, supporting Kent 1954. Cf. Woods 2000, for an attractive interpretation of this type, that the bull is an implicit reference to Sol or Helios. However, there is no explicit reference to solar theology, only to state security, and a winged horse also seems to have represented Sol on the coinage of Gallienus that Woods cites, which further complicates whether contemporaries readily viewed Julian’s bull as a solar symbol. For the bull as an astrological symbol of Julian’s birthday, see Gilliard 1964: 138–41; and García Ruiz 2018: 227–28. For an alternative and interesting view of the bull as representing the military aspect of the Roman pomerium, see López Sánchez 2012: 172–76.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    173

figure 6 . Julian II. Antioch, Double Maiorina, 361–363 CE. Obverse: D N FL CL IVLIANVS P F AVG. Reverse: SECVRITAS REI PVB. RIC 8.532.216. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group. Electronic Auction 495, Lot 485, 7 July 2021.

chief among these messages and, along with the promotion of state security, is related to imperial responsibilities (curae).177 Indeed, Julian’s bull type first appeared around the same time that he was planning his Persian campaign, when he declared in a law from Antioch that military service was of primary importance to the Roman state,178 and after he had issued the above solidi advertising the valor of Roman armies at the outset of his sole reign—contexts that cohere well with the bull type’s explicit message of state security on the reverse and that show continuity of purpose. In fact, a bull was the well-known emblem or mascot of many Roman legions as far back as the Late Republic.179 This observation fits well alongside the view that the bull represents the military side of the Roman pomerium (civic boundary separating political and military power), and so an emphasis on the militia part of domi militiaeque.180 Further, around the time that Mamertinus delivered his speech, we find Julian consistently and traditionally depicted on diverse coinage wearing a military cloak (paludamentum), cuirass, and pearled diadem, sometimes with a helmet, which illustrate his military responsibilities and focus;181 and the reverse of some of these 177.  Cf. Ware 2021: 174–75, 254, for the securitas of Constantine in his panegyrics, which is associated with imperial responsibilities (curae). 178.  CTh 6.26.1: In rebus prima militia est, secundus in litterarum praesidiis pacis ornatus (25 September 362); cf. Brendel 2017: 247–48. 179.  Keppie 1998: 139–40. 180.  See López Sánchez 2012: 172–76. 181.  See Kent 1981; and García Ruiz 2018: 214–15.

174      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

issues conveys imperial vows (uota) to serve the state for several decades, vows that are remarkably similar to those on Constantine’s and Constantius’s coinage.182 None of these coin issues have any overt messages that relate to religious policy, which is consistent with Mamertinus’s approach in his panegyric. At best, the rhetorician invokes divinity in a general sense as guiding behavior. He early on appeals to an immortal deity and then his own venerable conscience in place of a nameless divinity,183 and in a passage that is also notable for its vague reference to nefarious acts against Julian while leaving the agent behind these acts unclear. Later, Mamertinus appeals to a nameless venerable divinity and then raises an undefined divinity as the guiding hand behind Julian’s plans when the venerable emperor was considering possible magistrates for 362.184 This is followed by several references to a nameless deus.185 Of particular interest is Mamertinus’s deployment of deus and Fortuna side by side in the same sentence, where they are placed on a level of parity, where both are described as dispensers of rewards and gifts,186 which is suggestive of a desire for consensus. Subsequently, the panegyrist ascribes the peaceful resolution of civil war and Julian’s accession to heavenly aid.187 And he again invokes a venerable divinity, whom he associates with the emperor.188 By deftly deploying divinity in these ways, Mamertinus reminds his audience of the emperor’s inherent connection with the divine and that both are responsible for directing the Roman state. Thus Mamertinus not only summons a nameless divinity but also evokes the divine nature of the emperor, his “sacred mind” and “sacred heart,” which Julian applied to the benefit of the state.189 In this regard, the panegyrist also makes much of Julian’s great and divine practical wisdom.190 These deployments of divinity are in keeping with the anonymous Latin panegyric to Constantine in 313,191 the Latin panegyric of Nazarius on Constantine in 321,192 and the inscription on the attic of the triumphal arch of Constantine in 182.  See Kent 1959: 111–17, and 1981; Gilliard 1964: 136–37; and López Sánchez 2012: 171. 183.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.2. See also Sabbah 1984: 385–86; and Garcίa Ruiz 2008a: 147–48, who note the neutrality of such language as deus, numen, and diuinitas. On expressions of divinity in the Latin panegyrics, see Béranger 1970 and Rodgers 1986. 184.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).4.5: sancti principis; 7.2: Pro sancta diuinitas! 15.2: quaecumque . . . diuinitas. 185.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).22.1, 23.2, 27.2, 28.5. 186.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).27.2: Quae maiora exspectabimus dei praemia, quae uberiora dona Fortunae? (see García Ruiz 2006a: 146–47); more below. For other examples of Fortuna in the Latin panegyrics, see Pan. Lat. 10(2).8.5, 7(6).10.1, 6(7).3.1–3, and 2(12).8.1–2, 9.1–2. 187.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).27.5: caelesti ope. 188.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).28.4: pro sancta diuinitas! 32.1: sancta diuinitas. 189.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).15.1: sacra mens; 15.2: sacri pectoris. Cf. Pan. Lat. 12(9).2.5, for Constantine’s diuina mens. 190.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).21.3: ipse ingenti diuinaque prudentia . . . munitus est. 191.  Pan. Lat. 12(9).11.4: diuino monitus instinctu. 192.  Pan. Lat. 4(10).17.1: diuino instinctu.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    175

Rome.193 Like the anonymous panegyrist above, Mamertinus delivered his oration immediately after civil war against an opponent of apparently opposing religious beliefs. In this context, the use of remarkably neutral religious language by a spokesman of a new government should be seen as a measure for creating consensus and thus reinforcing that government’s position. So some of Julian’s qualities are presented as divine, but the emperor himself is not.194 And this portrayal, in turn, serves to support Julian’s ciuilitas. Mamertinus’s objective was to unite all around the emperor and his new political program.195 This cannot be overemphasized. The invocations of divinity above are similar to those in the panegyrics to Constantine after 307, whom some scholars have seen as a consensus-builder, except that Mamertinus is even more careful than his predecessors, in that he does not invoke any gods by name other than Fortuna. An earlier panegyrist had managed to name and to place Apollo and Victory together alongside Constantine and before his civil war against Maxentius in 312.196 By contrast, that Julian is not named and associated with Apollo and Victory, whom he favored, is striking and again suggests a policy of reconciliation toward the Christian elite after civil conflict. When this is considered alongside Julian’s encouragement of traditional cult in his ideological/propagandistic Epistle to the Athenians from summer/fall 361, in which he invokes Zeus and Helios, among others, and declares that he had offered sacrifices to them during civil war (see chapter 3), and Libanius’s remarks on a reinvigoration of blood sacrifice in a Greek panegyric before Julian at Antioch in summer 362 (see chapter 5), Mamertinus’s treatment of the emperor’s religious policy at Constantinople at the start of 362 stands out. Mamertinus’s careful phrasing, I argue, indicates Julian’s wishes; we can recall Mamertinus’s opening words in his panegyric, where he states that he knows what Julian and his advisers think, and, presumably, what they want. Given that the rhetorician, praetorian prefect, and consul presented himself as a kind of official spokesman for the emperor, we should conclude that the motive for building a new consensus originated with Julian. Consequently, Mamertinus’s nameless divinities must reflect Julian’s wish for language that was unifying rather than divisive at the start of 362,197 not unlike the panegyrist’s notable and consistent references to the emperor’s ciuilitas, both of which illustrate a new government interested in fostering agreement. This wish is also borne out by the fact that Mamertinus does not mention or even allude to a 193.  CIL 6.1139 = ILS 694: instinctu diuinitatis. On this remarkably neutral phrase, see Lenski 2008. 194.  See Rodgers 1986: 91: “Although Julian receives divine guidance and help, he himself never leaves the human realm . . . Claudius Mamertinus is the most careful of the orators to represent the emperor as a human being.” 195.  García Ruiz 2006a: 37. 196.  Pan. Lat. 6(7).21.4. 197.  See García Ruiz 2006a: 34.

176      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

religious act or posture by Julian, an omission that should be understood in the context of the emperor’s now-lost edicts of toleration, which he had issued by January 362.198 Indeed, Julian even convened a kind of ecumenical council at Con­ stantinople in the interest of fostering agreement among Christians by early 362, at least partly.199 H I M E R I U S A N D J U L IA N : R E F O U N D I N G C O N STA N T I N O P L E A N D R E L AT I N G N EW P O L IC Y

Panegyric had an important part to play in shaping an emperor’s public image and in finessing his relationships with his chief cities and subjects. We have already seen how Themistius diplomatically praised both Rome and Constantinople in relation to Constantius at Rome in his Oration 3, and how Mamertinus did much the same for Julian and Constantinople. Another praise-giver in Constantinople in early 362 was Himerius, who apparently had delivered an oration before Constantius about a decade earlier on the occasion of Gallus’s investiture as Caesar at Sirmium on 15 March 351.200 In the speech Himerius referred to an unnamed person: Letting his light shine out from the herd of young men like a high-spirited bull leading the herd, [he] leapt about in the meadows of the Muses like an inspired colt with his head held high. He imitated the Homeric youth, the son of Thetis, by being both a good “speaker of words” and “doer of deeds.”

Some have interpreted this reference as a deft allusion to Julian, who could have been among those in attendance.201 Later, in another Greek panegyric while Julian resided at Constantinople as Augustus, Himerius described him as “the greatest and most beautiful ornament of the city . . . the divine emperor [Julian].”202 Such 198.  See Hist. Aceph. 3.1–2; and n. 169 above. 199.  Amm. 22.5.3. Scholars have often commented on Julian’s apparent ulterior motives as remarked upon by Ammianus later in this passage, but what matters here is the public signal that the emperor would have sent with summoned, diverse clergy seen entering the Great Palace of Constantinople for a council; see Marcos 2020. 200.  See Bidez 1965: 95; Barnes 1987: 209. 201.  See Him. Fr. 1.6; Barnes 1987: 209; Penella 2007: 273–74 and n. 5. All translations by Penella unless otherwise noted. Cf. Henck 1999/2000: 108, who raises objections to inferring Julian’s presence at Gallus’s investiture from Himerius’s reference. 202.  Him. Or. 41, 8: τὸν μέγιστον καὶ κάλλιστον τῆς πόλεως κόσμον . . . βασιλέα . . . τὸν ἔνθεον. The text is from the standard critical edition of Colonna. Penella 2007: 34–35 dates this oration to sometime during Julian’s residency in Constantinople, so sometime between 11 December and June 362. He suggests that Himerius’s unnamed urban prefect may be a tertius quis between Honoratus and Domitius Modestus (45–46), whom Julian appointed after interviewing him in person at Antioch ca. late July. If Himerius’s panegyric, which refers to the opening of temples, is linked with Julian’s earliest extant law on temple restoration in early February 362 (Hist. Aceph. 3.1; issued from Constantinople, likely by late January), then Oration 41 would date to early 362, probably after Mamertinus’s oration.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    177

language presents the emperor as the most vital fixture of the urban landscape; in fact, Himerius goes on to link his praise of Julian as “the greatest and most beautiful ornament of the city” explicitly to the emperor’s building program in Constantinople,203 which the orator mentions after noting the “countless favors” that Julian had bestowed on the city.204 It is instructive that building programs were marks of euergetism often associated with the (re)founding of cities.205 Thus we should consider the date on which Julian entered Constantinople (11 December 361), for such dates were important symbols that often conveyed greater meaning, and scholars have failed to appreciate this red-letter day in Julian’s career fully. It would seem highly unlikely that the emperor first arrived outside of Constantinople on 11 December. Rather, he probably reached the Hebdomon (the “seventh [milestone]”; modern Bakırköy) in the immediate vicinity of the city some days beforehand and then began preparing for his triumphal entry with its requisite ceremonies.206 If so, Julian, I suggest, chose 11 December as the day to enter Constantinople with an eye to casting himself as the new founder of his native city, for 11 December was the traditional date of the Septimontia,207 a festival that appears to have been closely connected with the founding of the city of Rome; indeed, the learned Varro notes that “Septimontium” was the name of pre-urban Rome.208 Prior to Julian’s arrival at Constantinople in December 361, there were two notable dates connected with this city, 8 November 324 (dedication) and 11 May 330 (consecration/opening ceremonies),209 but the emperor’s arrival did not coincide with either of these. As we have already noted, Mamertinus refers to the celebration of festival dates and the consecration of old and new ones in honor of Julian’s entry into his native city,210 a reference that likely includes 11 December. Further, it appears that there was another festival celebrated on this date that would have had strong appeal for Julian: in addition to the Septimontia, 11 December was when an Agonalia (festival) was celebrated in honor of

203.  Or. 41, 8, 14. 204.  Or. 41, 8: μυρίαι . . . αἱ χάριτες. 205.  E.g., Veyne 1976; and Boatwright 2003, for Hadrian and the cities. 206.  On the Hebdomon, see Janin 1964: 446–49; and Dagron 2003: 59–61, 63, 67, 69–73, 76–78, 81–82. If Julian did indeed prepare for his entry at the Hebdomon, it may have set a precedent. The ceremonies would have been those of aduentus; see MacCormack 1990: 47–50, 192–93. 207.  See CIL 12, 278; and Salzman 1990: 124, for the listing of the date of this festival in the CodexCalendar or Chronograph of 354; and John Lyd. Mens. 4.155. While the Septimontia lacked ludi and circenses, it need not mean that Julian and his fellow Constantinopolitans did not consider the festival an important, symbolic occasion. 208.  Varro, LL 5.7. For some Quellenforschung on the Septimontia, see Platner 1906 and Adams Holland 1953. 209.  Dagron 1974: 32–33, 37–42; Barnes 1981: 212, and 2014: 126. 210.  See n. 171 above.

178      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

Helios Daphnephoros and Genarches (the Laurel-bearer and the Founder).211 As a devout follower of Helios, Julian would have considered such a date a particularly auspicious occasion for entering his patria and new imperial residence, especially since Helios’s epithets are associated with victory and heritage, two themes that the emperor would have been keenly interested in communicating about himself at this time and place and that harmonize well with the Septimonia as a festival of civic renewal.212 Honoratus apparently had taken up his office as urban prefect of Constantinople, the first prefect of the city, on 11 December 359,213 and perhaps for similar reasons, ones thus known to and accepted by the Constantinopolitan elite. While Himerius may not be thinking of the date of Julian’s entry into the city, we do find the rhetorician comparing the emperor’s relationship with Constantinople first to Romulus’s with Rome and then to those of other founders of cities.214 We might have expected Mamertinus to have made such a comparison, but he did not. Julian’s arrival ceremony (aduentus) and subsequent building activity at Constantinople would have provided him with opportunities to advertise himself as the new founder of this city, as a native son returning home to “New Rome” in keeping with a tradition established by Caesar Augustus and his wife, Livia.215 Indeed, Himerius may be alluding to the desire of Julian’s fellow Constantinopolitans to cast their emperor as the new founder of the city.216 Undoubtedly, Julian desired to be portrayed as the new founder of Constantinople, one who bestowed benefits on the city, probably including senatorial privileges, and who adorned the cityscape with new edifices, a representation of the emperor that would have gone some way to consolidating his authority in the Senate, the city, and the East overall. According to Himerius, Julian “has also washed away by his virtue the darkness that was preventing us from lifting our hands up to the Sun and has thereby given us the gift of raising us up to heaven as if from some Tartarus or lightless life.”217 Among the most notable things the emperor has done for his native city are the raising of temples to the gods and the establishment of traditional religious rites 211.  John Lyd. Mens. 4.155. 212.  On Julian as a devotee of Helios, see Athanassiadi 1992: 65, 67, 88, 113–14, 124, 173, and 179; Smith 2012: 139–62; Elm 2012: 114–16, 286–99; Fontaine 2013: LI–LX; and García Ruiz 2018: 222–23. 213.  Consul. Const. s. a. 359.2: et ipso anno primum processit Constantinopolim praefectus urbis nomine Honoratus die III id. Dec.; PLRE 1.438–39, Honoratus 2. 214.  Or. 41, 9. 215.  See Boatwright 2003: 172–203, for Hadrian’s (re)founding of cities; Angelova 2015: 9–43, for Augustus’s and Livia’s interest in their images as sacred founders of cities and new generations of Romans, and 111–60, for Constantine and Helena. 216.  Or. 41, 3; Greco 2003: 157–60; Penella 2007: 44–45. 217.  Or. 41, 8. Penella 2007: 62 n. 69 sees “the darkness” as “a Christian throne.” Cf. Fr. 1.6, where Himerius refers to Julian’s shining light.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    179

there.218 These are particularly interesting remarks because they stand in marked contrast to Mamertinus’s studied silence on religion. Near the very end of his oration, which is much shorter than Mamertinus’s, Himerius also employs protreptic speech by means of a series of hortatory subjunctives. He first implores Julian’s unnamed urban prefect indirectly to be a gentle ruler (“Let the city’s helmsman [the prefect] be gentle. . . . Let him be mild in his words but quick in his actions”) and to engage in several building projects meant to beautify the city and enhance its infrastructure in order to meet the needs of its growing population better. Himerius continues: “Let him build up the city. . . . Let him deepen the harbors and surround them with porticoes. . . . Let him build temples to the gods. . . . Let him extend the portico whose royal character is confirmed.”219 As we noted above, Julian did in fact have a new harbor constructed for Constantinople (portus Iuliani), and the extension of the imperial portico may refer to the emperor’s construction of a new library,220 though we do not know whether Himerius is stating that he saw what Julian had already done for the city through his urban prefect, and so is providing a panoramic outline of these new buildings,221 or whether Himerius was privy to what the emperor intended to do, and so decided to publicize Julian’s upcoming projects to the city’s inhabitants. How we interpret Himerius’s statements above has a direct bearing on the dating of his speech. If we take an intermediate position between proposed and completed civic projects, that is, the Greek panegyrist describes construction projects well underway, then his speech can safely be dated to several months after Julian’s entry into Constantinople, to after Mamertinus’s panegyric on 1 January. In any event, Himerius’s remarks portray Julian as a euergetes or benefactor of his native city. In this way, Himerius skillfully united emperor and city in a Greek panegyric that would have enhanced Julian’s standing both within and outside Constantinople, presumably with the educated elite in Athens and throughout the East, since Himerius enjoyed a strong following and reputation there, and his oration was probably circulated. Himerius’s comments on Julian’s building program in Constantinople also contribute to our understanding of Julian’s religious program, for the panegyrist makes two brief, general references to the emperor’s well-known temple policy, that is, to

218.  Or. 41, 8: τεμένη μὲν ἐγείρων θεοῖς, τελετὰς δὲ θείας καθιδρύων τῇ πόλει ξένας, τῶν δ’ εἰς αὐτὴν θεῶν οὐρανίων μυστήρια θεοποιῶν; more below. 219.  Or. 41, 14. 220.  See n. 80 above. 221.  Cf. Or. 41, 7, where Himerius earlier provides his audience with a panoramic view of the “senate house,” bath complexes, and theaters in Constantinople, that is, buildings that presumably were already standing. However, it would be worth knowing what exactly Himerius means here by “senate” (ἡ βουλή), since it appears that Julian completed the senate house as part of the Augustaion, though Zosimus employs a different word for it (γερουσία); see n. 80 above.

180      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

their renovation and reopening.222 Mamertinus had nothing to say about this to an audience that was presumably Christian to a great degree on New Year’s Day 362. Yet that Himerius subsequently did some weeks or months later is suggestive of careful messaging on Julian’s part, especially because Himerius begins his panegyric by invoking Helios-Mithras and stating that he has become an initiate into this cult, perhaps in support of the emperor,223 an invocation that can be read as an appeal to Julian’s coreligionists in Constantinople and elsewhere. This opening of an oration is striking, just as striking as Mamertinus’s silence on religion. Unlike Mamertinus, who addressed fellow senators, Himerius possibly delivered his speech before his fellow Mithraic initiates.224 There are also some key differences between Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s positions. While Mamertinus, too, was Julian’s panegyrist, he was also the emperor’s praetorian prefect and consul prior, and thus what Mamertinus discussed in his Latin oration before Julian and the Senate of Constantinople, including what he did not discuss, namely, religion, represented, as I have argued, official policy, since Mamertinus could be viewed as Julian’s spokesman; Latin was the official language of the Senate and the imperial administration. On the other hand, Himerius did not hold public office under Julian, and Greek was the language of the educated elite, and so the orator’s mention of Helios-Mithras and his subsequent protreptic remark “Let him raise temples to the gods and may he conciliate the higher one [sing.] [and] make it a friend for the city,”225 which he does not elaborate on, can be read as the public statement and suggestion of a private citizen (priuatus); moreover, it seems that Julian and his urban prefect were not present for this oration.226 In short, Himerius’s message could have been targeted at a specific group and tested without involving the emperor and his top representatives personally in an official capacity, although Julian and his prefect are referenced. Who is the “higher one” (to kreitton) Himerius refers to? Julian himself had used this neutral term for divinity while ostensibly still Christian,227 a term that Constantine had also used and that Libanius would subsequently use as well. Perhaps Helios is meant. Since the above message on Helios-Mithras and temples emanated from a learned and well-established Greek rhetorician, one 222.  See Hist. Aceph. 3.1; CTh 15.1.3; Lib. Or. 18, 126; Amm. 22.5.2; John Chrys. Disc. Bab. 76; Soz. 5.3.1–2; and Jul. ELF 42 (Bidez and Cumont 1922). See also Arce 1975; Brendel 2017: 271–76; Marcos 2019a: 538–39; Wiemer 2020: 214–24; and Schmidt-Hofner 2020: 155–60. 223.  Or. 41, 1. 224.  Penella 2007: 35. 225.  Or. 41, 14: ἐγειρέτω δὲ καὶ τεμένη θεοῖς καὶ εὐμενίζοιτο τὸ κρεῖττον τῇ πόλει φίλον τ’ ἐργάζοιτο; trans. Penella, which I have modified. 226.  Or. 41, 14–15, 16; Penella 2007: 34–35 and n. 3, and 46. 227.  Jul. Or. 3, 70D. Cf. Euseb. VC 2.24.1, 2.25, 2.26.1, 2.28.2, 2.67, 2.68.3, 2.71.4, for some examples of Constantine embedding and emphasizing τὸ κρεῖττον in two Eastern pronouncements. See also chapter 2, n. 207.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    181

whom Julian had invited to join his court in Constantinople, we can presume that the emperor intended for Himerius’s comments to be communicated to those among the Eastern elite who would have been sympathetic to his new policy. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasizing that Himerius’s two allusions to Julian’s new religious policy, to temples and to religious rites,228 are rather brief and general, in that they do not specify any particular temples or deities by name and are neatly placed amid “secular” building projects, projects that would not have occasioned much if any opposition. Furthermore, Himerius makes no reference in his oration to blood sacrifice. That he does not dedicate inordinate space to discussing Julian’s religious policy and limits his remarks on it is suggestive of the emperor’s desire not to publicize it excessively but to frame religious action as just one among many new imperial initiatives, albeit a significant one. To be sure, Julian refers to blood sacrifice several times in his hymns To the Mother of the Gods and To King Helios, which have been dated to late March and December 362, respectively.229 If the dating of Julian’s Hymn to the Mother of the Gods holds, it was three months removed from Claudius Mamertinus’s panegyric and its religious neutrality, and so Julian’s hymn reflects an explicit updating of imperial messaging and/or a new target audience with respect to new religious promotion and policy. The dates of Julian’s two hymns also seem to align with Himerius’s and Libanius’s speeches, Himerius having offered his likely in early 362 and Libanius having offered his two orations to Julian in late July 362 and at the start of January 363 (see chapter 5); these two panegyrists may have taken their cues regarding content for their speeches, in part, from Julian’s two hymns. Moreover, Julian had delivered his two hymns, among other orations, before audiences at his court, first at Constantinople and then at Antioch,230 which would suggest that these orations were meant for select members of the educated elite, and perhaps exclusively so. The panegyrics, on the other hand, were delivered in central civic spaces during significant public occasions and celebrations, when members of the elite and others from the populace listened to these addresses.231 Such occasions 228.  Or. 41, 8, 14. 229.  Prato and Marcone 2013: 43–44, 97–99; Nesselrath 2015: viii–ix. See also Elm 2012: 118–35, 286–99, who discusses the hymns To the Mother of the Gods and To King Helios but does not consider the immediate audiences for these orations. On Julian and blood sacrifice, see Bradbury 1995; Marcos 2019b: 397–98; and chapter 5. 230.  See Lib. Or. 18, 157, who specifically refers to the Hymn to the Mother of the Gods as having been “exhibited” (ἔδειξεν), that is, delivered, at Constantinople; and Jul. Ad Hel. R. 143B, for a possible indication that Julian delivered this speech before an audience at Antioch. Cf. Athanassiadi 1992: 131; and Smith 2012: 49, both of whom suggest that Julian delivered his Against Heraclius the Cynic (Or. 7) before an audience at Constantinople. 231.  Pan. Lat. 3(11); Lib. Orr. 13 and 12. Cf. Pan. Lat. 11(3).11; Rees 2002: 10 and n. 37, for the apparent inability of common citizens to attend such speeches.

182      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

provided emperors with opportunities to announce, explain, and/or advance their agendas more broadly. Julian was an emperor who prudently calibrated his messages, in both content and vehicle; he could prefer that panegyrics delivered before him broadcasted his religiosity cautiously, while discussing and publicizing his restoration of the cult of the gods in learned but more limited orations. C O N C LU SIO N

In sum, as I have argued, Mamertinus’s panegyric reflects and even projects a policy of reconciliation and consensus-building between the West and the East after civil war. We have seen the ways in which Mamertinus carefully presents Julian, how his Gratiarum actio serves to announce, explain, and advance the emperor’s political program and the differences between his and Constantius’s administrations, partly through the use of historical exempla from the Republic, in order to condition expectations that Julian’s will be good government. Julian is characterized as a traditional emperor, one who is shown as well aware of his responsibilities through his offerings of liberalitas, favor, and office, not unlike Trajan’s in Pliny’s Panegyricus. To promote divinity but avoid religion, Mamertinus also enlists neutral references to the divine; he ascribes divine qualities to Julian but does not explicitly mark out the emperor as divine himself,232 an approach that serves to underscore the emperor’s ciuilitas and approachability, which would have been welcome to Constantius’s officials who were likely somewhat uncertain regarding Julian’s intentions at this stage. Such careful portrayals suggest that Julian, through his praetorian prefect, consul, and panegyrist, was quite responsive to what his subjects expected of him, or what he thought they expected: that is, responsible civil administration and vigorous military defense. As a kind of official spokesman for Julian, Mamertinus presents these very responsibilities as priorities of the emperor, particularly his administrative obligation, and, in my view, conveys Julian’s interest in building a new consensus. The emperor’s concern with fostering agreement is also discernible in Himerius’s Oration 41, in which Julian is cast as the new founder of Constantinople, a portrayal that coheres well with the auspicious date on which he entered the city as sole emperor: 11 December 361, the day of the Septimontia, a festival connected with the founding of Rome, and a day celebrated with Agonalia in honor of Helios Daphnephoros and Genarches, a date Julian likely chose for its association with founding, victory, and heritage. Further, Himerius in Oration 41 in early 362 displays support for traditional cult generally, but he remarkably does not refer to blood sacrifice, so offensive to many Christians, a task that would be left to Libanius in his Orations 13 and 12 in late July 362 and early 363, respectively, as we shall 232.  See n. 194 above.

Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement    183

see in the next chapter. Both Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s speeches of praise variously illustrate a desire to showcase and to support Julian’s nascent government in Constantinople, to unite and reinforce, at least in the first few months following the emperor’s triumphal entry into the city. Mamertinus was a high official of government and Himerius a priuatus, albeit one associated with the imperial court. Both possessed and displayed varying degrees of independence as panegyrists. And yet both their panegyrics can be considered components of Julian’s communicative strategies. Shortly after entering Constantinople, Julian issued legislation on the restoration of temples and sacrifices.233 Some scholars have used Julian’s religious policy as presented in his epistles/edicts and other writings to define the emperor with broad brushstrokes and charges of fanaticism.234 Partly responsible for this construction is Ammianus, who commented on what he saw as the emperor’s excessive religious zeal in the form of the slaughter of hundreds of oxen at Antioch,235 and who amusingly opined that, if Julian had returned victorious from Persia, the Roman Empire would have suffered from a shortage of cattle.236 However, Mamertinus’s image of Julian complicates this view of the emperor; we have seen a Julian who was apparently concerned to a great extent, at least at the very start of his reign, with religious neutrality, with building a new consensus and equilibrium with all his subjects, pagan and Christian alike, more so than has typically been allowed. We should keep in mind that Ammianus’s comments above refer to Julian’s reign from late July 362 to early March 363, and that he published his work ca. 390 under the Christian emperor Theodosius,237 who variously assaulted traditional  pagan religious practices,238 and under whom Ammianus had to tread lightly when writing his Res gestae.239 Thus the pagan historian may not have actually disapproved of Julian’s religious acts as much as he seems to; he may have shaped his views on the emperor’s personal sacrificing to fit the times and to avoid being impolitic. Moreover, while Libanius states that Julian engaged in sacrificing more than was conventional,240 he does not criticize it as excessive; his intention is to highlight the emperor’s zeal for the gods for a pagan audience and to contrast that zeal with that of Julian’s Christian predecessors and successors. While Julian mandated the (re)building of temples across the empire as part of his restoration of traditional cult, he nonetheless did not order churches closed as a matter of 233.  See nn. 166 and 222 above. 234.  E.g., Gibbon 1993: 376; Bowersock 1978: 79–105. 235.  Amm. 22.12.6–7; cf. 22.14.3, 25.4.17. See also Julian’s detractor: Greg. Naz. Or. 4, 92.2–3. 236.  Amm. 25.4.17. 237.  Matthews 2007: 22–27; G. Kelly 2008: 8. 238.  See Errington 2006: 233–37; and Hebblewhite 2020: 112–28. 239.  See G. Kelly 2008: 8, 13–19, 24–28, 99, 283, and 320; and chapter 3. 240.  Lib. Or. 12, 80; Or. 18, 170.

184      Panegyric, Consensus, and Reinforcement

policy. In fact, that both temples and churches were, on the whole, allowed to function is not inconsistent with the religious and political message of Mamertinus’s oration of 1 January 362. This speech of praise also offers further support to the view that panegyric was a useful literary genre in fostering agreement among members of the elite during late antiquity. That Julian achieved some measure of equilibrium or consensus can be seen in the fact that his immediate successors, Jovian and then Valentinian and Valens, felt obligated to issue edicts of toleration after their accessions, a posture and policy that included a degree of forbearance for traditional cult and its adherents.241 Connected with this toleration is the Altar of Victory’s presence in the curia at Rome: having been removed by Constantius during his visit to the Eternal City in 357,242 the altar was apparently restored by Julian in 361/2 to the senate house where it remained until ca. 382, when it was once again removed and Symmachus and Ambrose famously fought over its restoration in petitions to the emperor Gratian.243 This well-known episode illustrates that, for some twenty years, there was a modus vivendi, that Julian’s decision regarding this altar was respected and upheld, and by his Christian successors. To be sure, Julian had displayed an argumentative stance against Christians and Christianity in other contexts, but that very stance also included some tolerance.244 Therefore, his adversarial position and a consensusbuilding posture displayed in panegyrics to and coin types by him need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed, Bidez considered that Julian’s religious policy evolved in ad hoc fashion.245 Julian’s attitude toward Christians and Christianity may have hardened over time, yet the emperor was perfectly capable of calibrating his public messages carefully depending on his audience. In early 362, it appears that Julian wanted to communicate where he stood on traditional cult and to promote it while also limiting the extent to which his subjects might feel alienated, and so he utilized two different panegyrics to convey different messages for different audiences, just as a good politician is wont to do. Such a view is consonant with the recent conclusion that Julian developed and implemented new religious policies, for the most part, individually, carefully, and incrementally, early in his reign.246

241.  E.g., Heather and Moncur 2001: 154–58; Lenski 2002: 214–18. 242.  See Ambr. Ep. 73.32. 243.  On pagans and Christians in late antique Rome, see Salzman, Sághy, and Lizzi Testa 2016, esp. the paper by Chenault for one aspect of the Altar of Victory controversy, which has a sizable literature. 244.  See Marcos 2019b. 245.  See Bidez 1914: 421–25, 451–54, esp. 454, and 1965: 225–35, 291–99. 246.  See Schmidt-Hofner 2020: 155–60.

5

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement Libanius and Julian in Antioch, 362–363 But perhaps you will say that the very fact that I am writing to you is a proof that I am stung? No, I call the Savior Gods to witness that I am but trying to check your excessive audacity and boldness, the license of your tongue and the ferocity of your soul, the madness of your wits and your perverse fury on all occasions. In any case it was in my power, if I had been stung, to chastise you with deeds and not merely with words, and I should have been entirely within the law. jul. ep. ad nil. 50 wright (82 bidez) 446a, trans. wright

Imperial cities and residences were critical stages on which an emperor exercised, negotiated, and displayed power. By all accounts, Julian’s six-month stay at Constantinople had been a success. He had been welcomed into his native city by its inhabitants on 11 December 361, had gained the acceptance of the Roman army in the East (though at a cost), inaugurated the terms of his two consuls in the senate house, dispensed with some undesirables from Constantius’s regime, begun and completed several building projects, and apparently maintained a positive relationship with the populace of Constantinople in the process. Reconciliation and consensus, I argue, were crucial to this success, success that is all the more notable because Julian’s native city had been founded as a competitively Christian enclave. The emperor’s residency at Antioch in Syria, on the other hand, would end in failure. Panegyric helps to illuminate that failure and the aims of Julian’s seven-month residency at Antioch, since the emperor continued to rely on this literary genre as a medium of political communication. Close scrutiny of Libanius’s two successive Greek panegyrics to Julian demonstrates that the emperor exploited such speeches to explain and advance his public posture, preferences, and policies (Orations 14 and 15 are excluded, since they are personal appeals to Julian on behalf of Aristophanes and Antioch, respectively). 185

186      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

Unlike Himerius’s Oration 41, Libanius’s Orations 13 and 12 elaborate on Julian’s restoration of the cult of the gods, including blood sacrifice. However, in addition to the value of panegyric in praising the emperor and in promoting his religious program, Julian viewed praise discourse as a useful tool in disseminating other messages to his subjects while displaying his responsiveness to them more broadly. By expertly employing elements of this discourse in his letters to Eastern cities, the emperor also sought to increase his authority and standing with his subjects, and so he subtly framed his epistles and pronouncements, such as his first extant Epistle to the Alexandrians,1 as advisory documents for those in the East whom he came to rule over for the first time. As I will argue, it is partly as an advisory document that Julian’s peculiar pronouncement, the Antiochikos [logos]/Misopogon (Oration on Antioch/Beard Hater), should be understood, a communication that stands out for its impassioned and sustained promotion of the emperor and his new policies and for its punitive treatment of its addressee and audience: the populace of Antioch. Julian constantly played an active part in how he would be presented and publicized to his subjects. He also occasionally directed his considerable energy and skill at rebuking them, as in the case of the Antiochenes. As I will demonstrate, the Misopogon—which is the better known title—is both a kind of self-panegyric by Julian and an “anti-panegyric” on the city of Antioch, a double oration that positioned praise to publicize his conduct in the imperial office and enjoined polemic to censure the Antiochenes’ own behavior, to punish and to advise them as wayward and even unworthy subjects. As Themistius had reminded Constantius in his first panegyric, “All government requires both praise and punishment together as its tools, the one increasing virtue, the other curtailing wickedness.”2 And Julian’s Eastern communications as sole emperor reinforce this view. Emperors and cities, particularly key administrative centers, were often closely linked and presented together in imperial panegyrics, such as in Themistius’s speech to Constantius at Rome in 357, in which Constantinople and Rome each lay claim to the emperor’s favor, and in Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s orations to Julian, in which Constantinople is exalted because, among other reasons, it was Julian’s birthplace. Such cities were stages on which an emperor wished to perform his traditional and expected role as a benefactor (euergetes),3 and Julian tapped his rhetoricians and panegyrists to advertise him as such. But Julian paid particular attention to urban spaces, and he employed the flexible genres of epistolary writing and of panegyric, as a discourse of both praise and censure,4 to aid him in his administration of cities. 1.  Jul. Ep. 21 Wright (60 Bidez). 2.  Them. Or. 1, 13A, trans. Heather and Moncur 2001. 3.  E.g., Veyne 1976; Boatwright 2003; and chapter 4. 4.  In many respects, Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians, which, as I have shown (chapter 3), employs elements of panegyric, is an “anti-panegyric” on Constantius II. See also Humphries 1998, for Hilary of Poitiers’s “anti-panegyric” on Constantius.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    187

This is how we should read his Misopogon, as a multivalent imperial “letter,” albeit an especially bitter and a seemingly self-effacing one, centered on advising Roman subjects regarding their civic obligations and on inviting them to adopt new imperial preferences willingly. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section examines how Julian used his epistles to Eastern cities such as Alexandria, Bostra, and Edessa to publicize himself and to manage the expectations and behavior of his addressees. Scrutiny of these letters offers a new perspective on Libanius’s Orations 13 and 12 and especially Julian’s Misopogon. The second section explores Libanius’s two orations to the emperor in sequence—his address after Julian’s arrival at Antioch in late July 362 (Or. 13) and his consular oration of 1 January 363 (Or. 12)—in light of Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s speeches and shows how Libanius’s panegyrics promote Julian’s imperial legitimacy while chiefly connecting his religious and military policies. As in the cases of Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s panegyrics, I will argue that the contents of Libanius’s speeches reflect Julian’s wishes and his responsiveness to his subjects. Mamertinus had notably refrained from remarking on religious policy at the start of 362, and Himerius mentioned the erecting of temples generally in early 362, but Libanius conversely touched upon the emperor’s restoration of temples and of blood sacrifice in late 362 and early 363. Thus Libanius’s panegyrics seem to disclose a careful and gradual shift in imperial messaging, what I will argue is a careful and gradual curation and promotion of new religious policy.5 Finally, the third section reconsiders Julian’s Misopogon, which defies simple classification, in its Antiochene context. In so doing, I will offer an interpretation that complements the view of a “failure of ritualized communication” on the emperor’s part by drawing attention to certain statements in Julian’s and Libanius’s orations that speak to a failure of emperor and populace to find agreement.6 Julian had failed to build a new consensus with the Antiochenes on the eve of invading Persia in early 363, and they had failed to cooperate with him to this end.7 Moreover, I demonstrate that the emperor partly meant for his Misopogon to punish and to advise Antioch while he was away on campaign. Other, related goals of the Misopogon were to promote Julian as a responsible and responsive civic manager and to reiterate and reify his legitimacy and authority before subjects who seemed to have questioned him on these counts. It is with these particular goals in mind, I will argue, that Julian deployed and interwove elements of praise discourse into his Antiochene oration, discourse that allowed him to 5.  See Wiemer 2020, who outlines Julian’s religious policy but is notably silent on what we can learn about it from the emperor’s panegyrics. See also n. 30 below. 6.  On a “failure of ritualized communication,” see Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011. 7.  Cf. Lib. Or. 15, 23; Downey 1961: 390.

188      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

harness and to maximize the political opportunity that his projected departure from the city presented. A DM I N I S T E R I N G T H E E A S T B Y E P I S T L E - E D IC T S

Emperors since Caesar Augustus had partly administered the East by means of epistles and edicts, often (but not always) as responses to civic petitions.8 Sometimes, as in the case of Claudius’s epistle to the Alexandrians, emperors issued communications to cities in order to shape their behavior after civic disturbances.9 The “letters” that Julian directed toward cities in 362 are revealing of his civic relationships, methods, and objectives at this time—and later, in 363, when he produced the Misopogon for Antioch, as we shall see below. Shortly after his accession and entry into Constantinople in December 361, Julian had to address civic disruptions in Alexandria that had largely centered on the bishop George of Cappadocia, who was lynched by the city’s diverse inhabitants because of his actions while an agent of Constantius.10 Partly in response to the citizens’ lynching of George, Julian issued several imperial letters to Alexandria (three of which are extant) in which he displayed clemency and yet rebuked them strongly for their crime. The exact dating of these letters is uncertain, but the apparently earliest one from early 362 displays Julian’s penchant for self-praise and promotion and his interweaving of rhetoric into his pronouncements,11 which are often quite lengthy and serve as both juridical documents and policy statements that promote the emperor and his interests.12 Indeed, Ammianus refers to this particular letter as “an edict sent in [the form of] a fierce oration.”13 This imperial epistle begins with Julian praising Alexandria and its founder, Alexander of Macedon, along with its chief god, Sarapis, who is 8.  For some of these imperial letters in Greek, which were inscribed by Eastern cities, see Oliver 1989. See also Millar 1992: 217–23, 319–21, 537–49; Corcoran 2000; Edmondson 2015; Lenski 2016; and Coptés Copete 2017. There was often a blurring or overlap of epistles and edicts (see Millar 1992: 256, 319–21, 592, 598; and Corcoran 2000: 123–203), and hence my use of “epistle-edicts.” 9.  For Claudius’s letter, see Smallwood 1967: 99–102, no. 370 and Sherk 1994: 83–86, no. 44. See also Cass. Dio 69.8.1, for a reference to a letter of Hadrian’s to the Alexandrians in which he censured them for rioting. The Alexandrians ceased their destructive behavior upon receipt of this letter. 10.  See Marcos 2019b: 420 and n. 103. 11.  Jul. Ep. 21 Wright (60 Bidez). For Julian’s possible use of Dion of Prusa’s oration to the Alexandrians when writing his epistle to the same, see Marcos 2019b: 395 n. 56. See also Jul. Epp. ad Alex. 47 and 48 Wright (111 and 59 Bidez). On Julian in his correspondence and his use of rhetoric there, see Trapp 2012. For comparisons of some of Julian’s laws in the Theodosian Code with his relevant epistles and their style of political communication, see Carrié 2009. See also Schmidt-Hofner 2020. 12.  For Julian’s legislation, see Bidez and Cumont 1922. On Julian the lawgiver, see Ensslin 1923, Sargenti 1979, Pack 1986, Carrié 2009, Harries 2012, Brendel 2017, and Schmidt-Hofner 2020. 13.  Amm. 22.11.11: missoque edicto acri oratione.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    189

invoked thrice altogether.14 But other than these respectful invocations of the Hellenistic deity, there is no raising of or concern with religious policy, which fits well alongside Mamertinus’s silence on such policy on New Year’s Day 362. While Julian lauds Alexandria generally, he also praises the city more personally by connecting himself with it through his maternal grandfather and namesake, Julius Julianus, who had been prefect of Egypt and then praetorian prefect of the East under Licinius for nearly a decade.15 That Julian links himself with this city on a personal level and manages to praise both parties in the process, just as he had with Corinth and Constantinople,16 illustrates his interest in using his close relationships with key urban centers as a way to enhance his authority with them and to encourage their compliance with his edicts. In short, Julian knew that the power of praise could be deployed in such a way as to reinforce and even advance his standing with his subjects. What is also instructive about his missive to the Alexandrians is that it again shows the emperor fashioning his messages in accordance with his audience, as in his epistles to Athens and Corinth during civil war in 361. That Julian intended some of his epistles to serve as advisory documents is manifest in his letters to the people of Bostra (Bosra) in Arabia and the people of Edessa in Osroene, letters in which the emperor’s rhetorical and authentic voice is evident, just as in his epistle to Alexandria above.17 At Bostra, Julian apparently feared that there would be an upheaval in the city, that pagans and Christians would come to blows and break civic order because of actions by the bishop Titus—hence his epistle to the city, which he refers to as an edict (diatagma) and which was likely posted on the city’s tetrapylon.18 The emperor’s “solution” to potential conflict was to appeal directly to the people of Bostra to expel Titus from the city, though we do not know if and how this occurred.19 Before making this appeal, Julian presents himself as a restrained ruler, especially in contrast to Constantius, and those whom Constantius had exiled as having acted boldly with

14.  Jul. Ep. ad Alex. 21 Wright (60 Bidez) 378D, 379A, 380B. 15.  Jul. Ep. ad Alex. 21 Wright (60 Bidez) 380B. See Bidez 1924: 71, who emended the text, rightly I think, to reflect “my [maternal] grandfather and namesake” (τὸν πάππον τὸν ἐμὸν καὶ ὁμώνυμον) instead of “my [maternal] uncle and namesake” (τὸν θεῖον τὸν ἐμὸν καὶ ὁμώνυμον), as in Wright. Indeed, Julian’s maternal uncle Julianus was governor of Phrygia, not Egypt, prior to Julian’s letter to the Alexandrians; see PLRE 1.470–1, Iulianus 12; and 1.478–79, Iulius Iulianus 35. 16.  See Jul. Ep. 20 Bidez, for a fragment of Julian’s Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he appeals to the citizens for support during civil war with Constantius and claims a special relationship with the city by invoking his father’s residency there; and Pan. Lat. 3(11).2.3–4, 14.5–6, for Julian and Constantinople, his birthplace and patria. 17.  See n. 11 above and nn. 168 and 169 below. 18.  Cf. n. 158 below. 19.  Jul. Ep. 41 Wright (114 Bidez) 437B; cf. Soz. HE 5.15.10–12. On this episode, see Marcos 2019b: 426–29.

190      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

impunity.20 We thus can see Julian employing his missive in a bid to prevent civic upheaval (stasis) and to steer the community toward stability, not unlike in his epistle to Edessa, where “Arian” or Homoian Christians had assaulted the rival Christian community of Valentinians. The emperor responded to the latter case by seizing Homoian monies and warning the city’s inhabitants generally that they would suffer dearly in the event of repeat violence,21 just as he had warned the Alexandrians after the murder of the bishop George. As in other edicts, Julian’s epistles to Bostra and Edessa illustrate his skill in projecting his literary persona and expressing his political will. These two letters also contain references to Christians as “Galileans,” Julian’s complicated designation for them,22 but they are more remarkable for what they do not refer to. No mention is made of imperial religious initiatives, except when the emperor wishes to advertise the fact that he has not made sacrificing or worshipping of any gods mandatory.23 Indeed, while Julian displays his support for traditional cult generally, the tone and language of his communications above reflect an emperor interested in inviting willing conformity, and to that end he valued praise discourse and variously deployed it. Julian used his letters to Eastern cities to communicate his public posture and preferences to them while nudging the behavior of their inhabitants toward his manner of belief and practice in persuasive ways, which, as I will argue, is how we should partly understand his Misopogon (see below). Where made, Julian’s invocations of the gods seem tailored to his audiences; the emperor invoked Helios, Sarapis, the Mother of the gods, and other deities depending on what he deemed advantageous in a particular context. Julian’s communications after Mamertinus’s speech illustrate someone still interested in building a new consensus, particularly in the religious sphere. This consciously revisionist view on Julian is not unlike some conclusions regarding Constantine.24 For example, Constantine’s measured response to a petition from the city of Hispellum in Umbria has been assessed as the act of a pragmatic emperor interested in bringing his subjects to his side, but without employing physical coercion to do so; that is, Constantine engaged in dialogue and negotiation.25 Although Con­ stantine’s rescript or letter to this city was produced in a context and language different from those in which Julian wrote his Eastern epistles, they nonetheless share the same underlying approach to communicating with imperial subjects: they invite willing compliance with imperial preferences. Perhaps a closer ana20.  Jul. Ep. 41 Wright (114 Bidez) 436A–437A; οἱ . . . τετυραννηκότες (437A). 21.  Jul. Ep. 40 Wright (115 Bidez) 425A. On these actions, see Marcos 2019b: 402–3 n. 72, 410. 22.  See Scicolone 1982 and Marcos 2020. 23.  Jul. Ep. 41 Wright (114 Bidez) 436C; Ep. 40 Wright (115 Bidez) 424C. See also Marcos 2019b: 383–84. 24.  See Drake 2000 and Lenski 2016. 25.  On Constantine’s communications to Hispellum, see Lenski 2016: 114–30.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    191

logue is one of Constantine’s epistles to his Eastern subjects,26 in which traditional cult is denounced but not outlawed.27 Constantine’s Eastern proclamations as preserved by Eusebius also contain rhetorical flourishes and autobiographical elements,28 not unlike Julian’s Eastern decrees, but the latter’s display a keener influence of praise discourse. But let us turn next to Libanius’s address to Julian (Or. 13) and to his consular oration before the emperor (Or. 12) and consider what these speeches tell us about what Julian desired to be broadcasted in Antioch regarding his government, in late July 362 and on 1 January 363, respectively, before moving on to assess Julian’s Misopogon, which was published in late February/early March 363. L I BA N I U S A N D J U L IA N : C U R AT I N G A N D P R OM O T I N G N EW P O L IC Y

J. Bidez considered long ago that Julian’s political program in the religious sphere represented an ad hoc “evolution.”29 More recently, another scholar has concluded  that Julian developed and implemented new religious policies, in large part, individually, carefully, and incrementally,30 a conclusion that the present study supports. Neither scholar focused on Julian’s panegyrics but naturally on his legislation and the diverse circumstances to which it was a response. As has been noted, the anonymous Historia acephala (Acephalous History) records that Julian issued two directives (praecepta) published in February 362 (4 and 8 February) on the reopening of temples and the return of all bishops exiled by Constantius.31 But the entries in the Historia acephala on these imperial pronouncements tell us little else, since we do not have the actual texts of the emperor’s edicts or epistles, only the anonymous author’s understanding and reception of them. To appreciate Julian’s religious motives and intentions more fully, we would do well to apply diachronic analysis to the messaging of the speeches of praise that he received. Panegyrics to Julian, I argue, allow us to see the emperor promoting new religious policy carefully and gradually. Julian probably issued the above directives more than a month after entering Constantinople on 11 December and a few weeks after Mamertinus’s speech 26.  Euseb. VC 2.47–60. 27.  VC 2.56.1, 2.59, 2.60.1–2. See also Marcos 2019b: 402. 28.  E.g., VC 2.28–29, 2.48.2–51.2. 29.  See Bidez 1914: 421–25, 451–54, esp. 454, and 1965: 225–35, 291–99. Cf. Barnes 2002, for an evolution in Constantine’s own policy, from toleration to repression. See also n. 36 below. 30.  See Schmidt-Hofner 2020: 155–62, esp. 155–60, who argues that Julian did not restore traditional cult by a single, sweeping edict but did so incrementally and discreetly through judgments in individual cases, individual directives and instructions to officials, and private letters. 31.  Hist. Aceph. 3.1–2; Bidez 1914: 421–22.

192      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

there—the emperor’s orders would have taken a few weeks to travel from Constantinople to Alexandria, though we cannot say for certain when they were issued—a speech that, as I have argued, publicizes religious neutrality. Julian’s consecutive communications above, then, promoted religious toleration: with the stroke of his stylus, the emperor signaled his interest in reviving traditional cult and in allowing all Christians freedom of worship without direct imperial interference. There appears to have been something of a turning point in March 362, when the emperor continued to rely on imperial legislation to advance traditional cult but now while undermining the privileges, and so influence, of Christianity.32 It is not my intention here to challenge the view that the emperor was an energetic champion of traditional cult. Rather, it is to revise scholarly approaches to Julian’s religious agenda, which tend to focus on Julian the imperial pontifex in his laws and orations while underappreciating Julian the politician in the same, especially in his panegyrics. Unlike Mamertinus, Libanius of Antioch did not hold public office under Julian beyond apparently holding the honorary rank of “quaestor” (an emperor’s top administrative and legal official), a title that is listed in the heading of one of Julian’s letters to him that is dated to March 363.33 However, like Mamertinus, Libanius was a rhetorician, panegyrist, and friend of Julian. Libanius is also a well-informed and quasi-official source on the emperor and his preferences. He had corresponded with Julian as early as 353,34 that is, before the latter’s investiture as Caesar. More importantly for my purposes here, Libanius produced an “address” (prosphonetikos logos) to Julian shortly after his arrival at Antioch in late July 362 (Or. 13) and a consular oration (hupatikos logos) before him on 1 January 363 (Or. 12), the day on which Julian assumed his fourth consulship, with Flavius Sallustius as his colleague. It seems that it was around this time that the mint at Antioch issued solidi (gold coinage) advertising the emperor as consul and with continued emphasis, in both iconography and legend, on him as ruling a united empire.35 Like Mamertinus before him, Libanius delivered a speech in the emperor’s presence and on a similar occasion, and so it would be instructive to compare their orations closely. This is a particular desideratum because Libanius’s Orations 13 and 12 have yet to be studied with respect to how they frame the emperor’s politi-

32.  See CTh 10.3.1, 11.16.10, 12.1.50; Bidez 1914: 422–25. See also Marcos 2019a: 538–39. 33.  Jul. Ep. ad Lib. 58 Wright (98 Bidez). On Libanius and Julian, see Criscuolo 1982, Scholl 1994, Wiemer 1995, and Bouffartigue 2002. 34.  See Lib. Ep. 13 Foerster (23 Bradbury). 35.  RIC 8.530.206, with the emperor, in consular robes, holding his mappa and scepter; cf. fig. 2, where Constantius is also shown holding his mappa and scepter as undisputed Augustus. The unity of Eastern and Western armies under Julian is implied by the legend VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANORVM, with the emperor standing holding his mappa and scepter; cf. fig. 5.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    193

cal, religious, and military objectives following Mamertinus.36 What role had the emperor intended for Libanius’s orations to play during their joint stay in Antioch? As I will argue, Julian intended them to provide an “updated” outline of his political program for Eastern elites, particularly with respect to religious and military policy. Promoting Legitimacy and Piety for the Sake of (Success in) War Sometime after Julian arrived in Antioch on the Orontes in late July 362, Libanius delivered Oration 13 to him to commemorate his arrival in the city,37 a panegyric that Julian had requested.38 Libanius records this request in a letter to Celsus, his fellow Antiochene and Julian’s newly appointed governor of Cilicia, which is notable not only for the apparent reference in it to Oration 13 but also for the fact that Celsus had performed praise before Julian, probably in Tarsus, prior to the emperor’s arrival in Antioch.39 Local and regional notables, including imperial governors, had often prepared speeches of praise for the advents of emperors to their cities, and, in addition to Celsus, several governors did just that for Julian, each greeting him with some kind of oration (logos) as the emperor journeyed through each of their provinces on the way to Syria.40 Unfortunately, we have neither the panegyric of Celsus nor the orations of his fellow governors, but their speeches would have afforded governor, emperor, and subject certain political opportunities. Therefore, Libanius’s orations to Julian at Antioch in late 362 and early 363 are all the more valuable as kinds of “official documents” that throw into relief the emperor’s political interests and priorities,41 not unlike Mamertinus’s speech at Constantinople. Nevertheless, there is a distinct dissonance between Mamertinus’s and Libanius’s orations with respect to religious policy. In the very opening of his first address to Julian, Libanius pays the emperor and himself a compliment simultaneously when he links eloquence with religious scrupulousness;42 Mamertinus had been content merely to praise eloquence, both his own and Julian’s, and to promote 36.  For a comparative study of Mamertinus’s Gratiarum actio and Libanius’s Or. 12, see García Ruiz 2008a, who notes some common imperial themes and virtues but does not fully explore the “evolution” of Julian’s image and ideology/propaganda from the panegyric of Mamertinus on 1 January 362 to the consular oration of Libanius on 1 January 363, especially in terms of their outlining of religious policy. See also n. 29 above. 37.  On this type of speech, see Men. Rhet. 2.415–18 (2.9 Race). See Wiemer 1995: 43, 77–123, for the dating and standard study on Or. 13. On Julian’s stay at Antioch, see Bowersock 1978: 94–105; and Pack 1986: 301–77. 38.  Lib. Ep. 736 Foerster (88 Norman). 39.  Lib. Ep. 736 Foerster (88 Norman); Or. 18, 159: τὸν ἔπαινον; cf. Amm. 22.9.13, for Julian’s meeting of Celsus and their joint entry into Tarsus; PLRE 1.193–94, Celsus 3. 40.  Lib. Or. 18, 159. 41.  See Wiemer 1995: 83–85, 151, and 166. 42.  Lib. Or. 13, 1: μέρος τῶν ἱερῶν οὐκ ἐλάχιστον ἴσως οἱ λόγοι; see n. 110 below.

194      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

divinity and the emperor’s divine qualities generally. More importantly, Libanius’s opening remarks touching on religion do not include any reference to blood sacrifice, only to a general comment about “honor for the gods.”43 As we have noted regarding Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s orations, the opening lines of a panegyric were often where particular points of interest were emphasized; thus that Libanius does not explicitly mention blood sacrifice at the outset of his speech is a point to consider when assessing his subsequent statements on the emperor’s policies, religious and otherwise. Consistent with the familiar structure of imperial panegyric, Libanius first outlines Julian’s early life and education in a somewhat detailed section,44 in which the orator also makes some remarkable comments, among others, about the emperor’s conversion from Christianity to traditional cult, about his casting off of error and his discerning of the true from the false,45 comments that are in large part polemical,46 although Christianity is never named. Libanius then notes that the emperor had been greatly moved by the destruction and spoliation of temples,47 no doubt to underscore the sincerity of Julian’s conversion and new policy. As we might expect, the rhetorician subsequently relates that all that he has told us thus far in his oration is in accordance with the emperor’s wishes,48 including that the guiding hand of the gods lay behind Julian’s accession to empire.49 In fact, Libanius is keen to center his attention on the divine support and favor that Julian enjoyed by transitioning to the emperor’s military accomplishments. He discusses the difficulties that Julian had faced as Caesar in Gaul in order to highlight the emperor’s reputation as a successful general there,50 success that depended on divine favor. Consequently, Libanius can be seen advertising Julian’s military credentials for holding the imperial office and his divine selection as emperor. Yet, in marked contrast to Mamertinus, Libanius now offers the names of two of Julian’s guiding deities: Athena and Helios.51 The latter had been named by Himerius, but was not connected explicitly with the emperor (at least in the form that we have his oration). In a further promotion of Julian as general, Libanius approaches the accla43.  Or. 13, 1: τὴν τιμὴν τῶν θεῶν. 44.  Or. 13, 7–13. 45.  Or. 13, 12; cf. Pl. Theaet. 151b–d. 46.  Cf. Lib. Or. 12, 33. 47.  Or. 13, 13; cf. Jul. Or. 3, 80C, for remarks about temples of Helios having been despoiled. 48.  Lib. Or. 13, 17: Καὶ ταυτὶ μέν, ὡς ἐνῆν, μάλιστα σκιάσας διῆλθον ἐν ᾧ σοι τρόπῳ χαριούμενος ᾔδειν. 49.  Or. 13, 20–21. See also García Ruiz 2008a: 147–50, for the gods selecting Julian in Or. 12. The literature on the emperor as divinely sanctioned and even divine himself is vast; e.g., Taylor 1975; Hopkins 1978b: 197–242; Price 1986; Rodgers 1986; and commentary in Nixon and Rodgers 2015. 50.  Or. 13, 22–32. 51.  Or. 13, 28, 35.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    195

mation at Paris cautiously by presenting an unyielding soldiery and a Caesar worthy of higher rank; that is, by following Julian’s version of events, including his display of recusatio imperii (refusal of empire),52 as we have seen in his Epistle to the Athenians. These remarks on Julian’s military experience and his handling of his acclamation to Augustus suggest that the emperor was concerned with asserting his legitimacy shortly after arriving in Antioch.53 Indeed, what follows is a general summary of Julian’s movements from Gaul to Illyricum to Constantinople and the events surrounding his assumption of power as sole emperor upon the death of Constantius.54 Constantius’s unexpected death must have occasioned much disbelief and discussion in Antioch because Libanius felt required to cover it in some detail some nine months after the fact. Conversely, Mamertinus had artfully glossed over this topic in his panegyric by referring to Constantius as diuus (divine/deified),55 implying that Julian, as a lawful successor, had supported his cousin’s apotheosis. More in keeping with Mamertinus is the truncated but potent account of Julian’s new government that Libanius gives his Antiochene audience: his select punishments of the guilty under Constantius and reform of the cursus publicus (governmental communication and transportation service), his promotion of upright governors, reduction of imperial expenditures, rewarding of the soldiers, and lifting of prohibitions on divination, and his personal austerity and preference for philosophers in his company,56 all of which was consistent with Julian’s public image as a philosopher-emperor.57 Some of the remaining chapters of this oration do draw attention to Julian’s restoration of tradi­ tional cult, presumably by means of restoring temples, in part, and that there is now an atmosphere of offerings and blood sacrifice to the gods.58 Yet Libanius does not mention blood sacrifice until near the end of this speech, which suggests that it was a lesser consideration than publicizing Julian’s military credentials and legitimacy as emperor and what the Antiochenes could expect from him as sole ruler. As noted above, Libanius used Julian’s own writings when crafting his orations to the emperor,59 which thus imbues Libanius’s speeches to Julian with a measure 52.  Or. 13, 33–34. 53.  This concern appears again in Or. 12 (see García Ruiz 2008a: 142–44; more below). On the power of the urban plebs to determine imperial legitimacy, see Lendon 1997: 120–29. See also n. 35 above. 54.  Or. 13, 36–42. 55.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.2. 56.  Lib. Or. 13, 42–44; cf. Amm. 22.4, 25.4. 57.  See Jul. Ep. ad Them., Or. 4 (To King Helios), Or. 5 (To the Mother of the Gods), Or. 6 (Against the Uneducated Cynics), and Or. 7 (Against Heraclius). On these orations and Julian’s philosophical selfpresentation, see Elm 2012: 88–143. See also chapter 4, nn. 229 and 230. 58.  Lib. Or. 13, 45–47. On the outlining of the revival of temples and the state here, see Wiemer 1995: 101–7. 59.  See n. 52 above and n. 104 below.

196      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

of authority and makes them quasi-official pronouncements on the emperor’s government, like Mamertinus’s panegyric. For example, Libanius points out that Julian had written an account of his Gallic campaigns, and he draws the attention of his listeners/readers to that account for further details.60 Libanius also adduces Agamemnon evocatively of Constantius,61 which may indicate that Libanius had read Julian’s second oration (Or. 3), in which Julian styles himself as an Achilles serving an Agamemnon, that is, Constantius.62 That Libanius had read this pan­ egyric is supported by the fact that he keenly refers to Julian’s orations (logoi), implying that he had access to them and read them closely,63 which again highlights that Libanius took some care to espouse what would meet with the emperor’s approval. In fact, as we shall see below, there is great continuity in this regard with the consular oration to Julian on 1 January 363 (Or. 12), which Libanius once again delivered at Julian’s request and which develops his remarks from Oration 13.64 As has been seen, Oration 12 is “an official document of Julianic ‘propaganda.’ ”65 We do not know where exactly it was in Antioch that Libanius delivered his panegyric of 363 before the emperor. But, given what we know about Julian and what Libanius tells us about the occasion, it seems right to conclude that the panegyrist probably offered his praise in the bouleuterion of Antioch (see map 4), a large public venue that guaranteed that his New Year’s Day oration would enjoy a large audience and receive wide publicity.66 Indeed, Libanius subsequently considered Oration 12 one of his most important orations on Julian, for its material and arrangement would serve as a model for his well-known but understudied funeral oration on the emperor (Or. 18), which he completed by mid-365.67 Moreover, Oration 12 is quite revealing when evaluated 60.  Lib. Or. 13, 25. 61.  Or. 13, 50; cf. Or. 12, 49, where Julian acted in keeping with the example of Achilles. 62.  Jul. Or. 3, 49C–50A; see chapter 2. 63.  Lib. Or. 13, 51–52; cf. Or. 12, 92. On Libanius as a careful reader and curator of Julian’s logoi, see Ross 2020a. 64.  See Wiemer 1995: 151–88, for the standard study on Or. 12. 65.  Wiemer 1995: 151: “ein offiziöses Dokument julianischer ‘propaganda.’ ” 66.  See Lib. Or. 1, 111–12, for his delivery of a panegyric to Strategius Musonianus in the bouleuterion; Wiemer 1995: 154–55 and n. 21. Julian had chosen to hear Mamertinus’s panegyric of New Year’s Day 362 in the senate house of Constantinople. Moreover, Libanius notes that the audience of his consular oration was “countless” (μυρίους). To be sure, this is a hyperbole, but Antioch was one of the largest cities in the East and its bouleuterion likely could accommodate a thousand individuals or more, whereas the audience chamber of the imperial palace there probably could not. On the bouleuterion of Antioch generally, see Downey 1961: 377. On the late Roman palace at Antioch during Julian’s reign, see Saliou 2009: 242–44, who compares this palace to the one at Split, which Diocletian augmented and built respectively. 67.  For a commentary on much of this posthumous oration on Julian (chapters 111–308), see Bliembach 1976. This oration’s date of composition hinges on the dating of a particular earthquake that Libanius refers to within it, whether it occurred in 365 or later. For a date of by mid-365 before 21 July,

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    197

alongside Mamertinus’s Gratiarum actio (Speech of Thanks).68 When the two speeches are compared, what becomes readily apparent about Libanius’s consular oration is that it focuses more on Julian’s military credentials (and more so than Or. 13), on his successful record as a commander in Gaul along the Rhine and beyond it,69 and in contrast to those credentials of Constantius, who is alluded to frequently and disapprovingly as an Eastern commander.70 As we have seen, Mamertinus dedicated relatively little space to Julian’s military record, preferring instead to reduce it to a few references that tell us less about Julian as commander along the Rhine than does Eutropius’s Breuiarium (short history); this unusual brevity was probably due, in part, to certain tensions between the Western and Eastern armies at the conclusion of civil war. However, precisely a year later, in 363, when Julian’s political position was more secure, we find Libanius emphasizing the emperor’s martial valor and record in the context of his preparations for a war with Persia, support for which the rhetorician was interested in encouraging in tandem with promotion of traditional pietas (piety)—which at its most basic level denotes duty or obligation and overlaps with religio71—among other things. And while Mamertinus had been content simply to criticize some of Constantius’s officials, Libanius felt empowered to condemn Constantius himself, as we shall see. After a lengthy proem that takes up fully a quarter of his consular oration, which includes a short history and discussion of the consulship itself,72 Libanius invokes Tyche and the gods favorably on Julian’s behalf.73 Tyche was typically respected as a protective deity of a city such as Antioch, and Libanius’s invocation of her subtly casts her as Julian’s protector as well. In fact, Julian himself tells us in his Misopogon about his visits to her temple in Antioch.74 In keeping with the conventions of praise-giving, Libanius begins his speech with the emperor’s education and upbringing; and the rhetorician offers fulsome praise of Julian’s paideia (shared education and culture).75 Further, the emperor’s penchant for philosophy is noted and praised for its ability to detect and to remove religious error,76 a striking remark in light of Julian’s own remarks on Christianity and a view inherent in several of his see Wiemer 1995: 260–68; and G. Kelly 2004: 147–48, 163. Cf. Van Nuffelen 2006, for after 11 October 368 as a possibility. 68.  For an earlier comparison, see García Ruiz 2008a. 69.  Lib. Or. 12, 20, 44–53, 57. 70.  Or. 12, 21, 39–44, 52, 53, 62. 71.  On imperial pietas, see Noreña 2011a: 71–77. On religio, see Beard et al. 2013: 215–17. 72.  Or. 12, 1–24; breuiarium on the consulship: 7–19. 73.  Or. 12, 25. 74.  Jul. Misop. 346B. See also Marcos 2019b: 434–35. 75.  Lib. Or. 12, 26–33, 92–94; cf. Or. 13, 1, 8–13, 25, 51–52. On promoting an emperor’s paideia and its importance as a part of his public image, see chapter 1. 76.  Or. 12, 33.

198      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

writings.77 Libanius’s comment can be read as an oblique critique of Christianity. Indeed, religious polemic has been detected here,78 which we have already seen in Libanius’s Oration 13 above.79 Such statements suggest that Libanius’s audiences for these two speeches were predominantly pagan, in contrast to the spectators in the senate house at Constantinople who had heard Mamertinus’s panegyric. Nonetheless, Julian’s character and his temperament are given greater attention80—because moral qualities, as we have seen, were prerequisites for ruling—as are his dynastic connections and so his claim to legitimacy, for his cousin (Constantius) and brother (Gallus) were both emperors, an Augustus and a Caesar, respectively.81 This underscoring of Julian’s dynastic claims to imperial power is repeated and expanded to include his father (Julius Constantius; not an emperor but a legitimate member of the dynasty), paternal grandfather (Constantius I), and paternal uncle (Constantine),82 expansion and emphasis that are suggestive of Julian’s continued and increased concern since Oration 13 with broadcasting his legitimacy. If so, this concern, in turn, suggests that some Antiochenes had questioned Julian’s validity as emperor, validity that he had argued for energetically in his Epistle to the Athenians and subsequently through his actions at Constantinople. And there was another, related aim here: to advertise Julian’s ascetic habits when he was a private citizen (priuatus; that is, one who was a member of the imperial family but who did not hold any public office, like his father), one who had not lived ostentatiously, though a member of the imperial family.83 When delivering his panegyric before a Constantinopolitan audience, Mamertinus had avoided discussing Julian’s ancestors and imperial predecessors, likely because these were well known in Julian’s native city and perhaps because the Constantinopolitans had not questioned the emperor’s legitimacy as Constantius’s successor; the Latin panegyrist saw fit to refer only to Julian’s familial link to Constantius, who, in keeping with tradition, is mentioned as Julian’s imperial “brother” (frater) and as “divine” (diuus).84 But Libanius plays a delicate game via sunkrisis (comparison), for he undermines Constantius’s standing as Julian’s immediate predecessor, one who had spent much of his reign in Antioch,85 so as to depict Julian as a superior emperor. 77.  E.g., Jul. Ep. 41 Wright (114 Bidez) 438C, Ep. 36 Wright (61c Bidez) 424B, Ep. ad Lib. 58 Wright (98 Bidez) 401C, and Cont. Galil. 327B. 78.  Wiemer 1995: 170–71. See also Scholl 1994: 110–15. 79.  Lib. Or. 13, 12. 80.  Or. 12, 26. 81.  Lib. Or. 12, 28–29; cf. García Ruiz 2008a: 142–44. 82.  Lib. Or. 12, 31. On dynastic legitimacy and succession, see Ando 2000: 33–40; and Börm 2015. 83.  Or. 12, 31. 84.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1, 3.2, 5.2, 27.4; see chapter 4. 85.  See Barnes 1993: 219–24.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    199

Mamertinus had alluded gently to the strained relationship between Julian and Constantius and yet omitted telling us of Constantius’s hand in the massacre of the imperial family in 337.86 Conversely, Libanius assaulted Constantius’s memory by publicly faulting him for this massacre, and he censured Constantius for the eventual enmity between him and Julian,87 not unlike the charges that Julian had leveled against his cousin in the Epistle to the Athenians. Like Julian in his Epistle, Libanius’s task as a rhetorician and panegyrist was to deconstruct Constantius, to an extent, and to validate Julian. Interestingly, Libanius does not explicitly cite imperial virtues, such as justice, fortitude, prudence, and wisdom, and associate them with Julian, as Mamertinus did.88 Instead, he illustrates such virtues through examples of Julian’s (proper) behavior as a private citizen, Caesar, and sole Augustus in turn, not unlike Ammianus in book 20: “practical wisdom” (phronesis) in how he behaved properly as a priuatus under Constantius and Gallus from 351 to 354;89 “prudence” (sophrosune) in his personal habits, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping during the same period;90 “courage” (andreia) against German tribes as Caesar in Gaul;91 and “justice” (dikaiosune) in his acceptance of his acclamation to Augustus at Paris (which was divinely conceived) and in his subsequent dealings with Constantius.92 We might have expected Libanius to name Julian’s divine patron, perhaps Helios, but he does not; the emperor enjoyed divine favor generally.93 And to the list of virtues above he adds “piety” (eusebeia) in Julian’s restoration of the cultus deorum (worship of the gods), including traditional sacrifice.94 In connection with the latter, the remainder of this oration is dedicated, in large part, to Julian’s pending invasion of Persia, where the emperor would display his andreia in the East.95 As Libanius thus presents him, Julian acted properly at every stage of his life and career, and in contrast to Constantius, and so is more than worthy of holding the imperial power. This presentation in Oration 12 also appears to be implicit apologetic in the context of Julian’s doings at Antioch, such as his measures to address a food shortage, and the Antiochenes’ reception of them (see below).

86.  See Pan. Lat. 3(11).3.1–2, 5.2, 14.5, 27.4–5. 87.  Lib. Or. 12, 41, 44. 88.  Pan. Lat. 3(11).5.4, 21.4; cf. García Ruiz 2008a: 144–47. On the emperor’s virtues, see Charlesworth 1937 and 1943, Wallace-Hadrill 1981, and Noreña 2011a. 89.  Lib. Or. 12, 29, 35. 90.  Or. 12, 31. 91.  Or. 12, 40–54. 92.  Or. 12, 59–62. 93.  Or. 12, 59. 94.  Or. 12, 69. 95.  Or. 12, 70f.

200      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

To promote Julian at Antioch, Libanius compared him to Greek heroes and generals.96 He offered Julian’s military résumé,97 which would have been of interest to an Eastern audience that had recently suffered at the hands of the Persians in 359/60 (and of greater interest than at Constantinople) and that could see that Julian was preparing for a punitive invasion.98 Libanius had disapproved of Constantius’s defensive-minded Eastern foreign policy,99 and he was likely not alone. Indeed, Libanius’s emphasis on a shift in military policy in the East under Julian likely reflects broader interest among the populace for such a shift as much as Julian’s own preference for it. If so, it shows that Libanius and, by extension, Julian were attentive to public sentiment on such matters. The orator then segues to the increasingly poor relationship that had existed between Constantius and Julian and puts forth the sequence of events we have already seen presented in Ammianus as leading to Julian’s pronouncement at Paris.100 However, Libanius preserves three different versions of the pronouncement at Paris in Orations 13, 12, and 18.101 At first, Libanius declared that the soldiers had acted of their own free will and with the agreement of the gods,102 a reference he subsequently modified in the consular oration so as to convey divine inspiration for Julian’s acclamation.103 Libanius’s coverage of this critical event, which apparently had been too sensitive for Mamertinus to broach in early 362, must again reflect that there were lingering voices discussing this episode at Antioch after Constantius’s death and that Libanius (or Julian) considered that it was important to put those voices to rest in early 363. Much of what Libanius relates in Orations 13 and 12 is traceable to Julian’s own panegyrical Epistle to the Athenians, including Julian’s display of recusatio imperii.104 Libanius thus recognized the panegyrical material or elements in Julian’s Epistle and in turn saw fit to reapply them in an official panegyric before the emperor, not only to compliment Julian and to comply with his wishes but also to promote a new pax deorum (peace of the gods).105 Indeed, as in Oration 13, Libanius makes general references in Oration 12 to new religious policy, to Julian’s raising of temples and altars, and he declares that the 96.  Or. 12, 20, 28, 44, 48, 49, 52, 97; cf. 66, for a comparison to Cyrus the Great. 97.  Or. 12, 40–54. 98.  On Julian’s Persian expedition, see McLynn 2020. 99.  Lib. Or. 18, 205–7. On Constantius and Persia, see Blockley 1989 and 1992: 12–24; Seager 1997: 253–62; and Marcos 2012. See also Baker-Brian 2022: 75–79. 100.  Lib. Or. 12, 57–62. 101.  García Ruiz 2008a: 143. See also Scholl 1994: 40–79. 102.  Lib. Or. 13, 33–34; cf. Or. 18, 95–102. 103.  Or. 12, 59. 104.  Lib. Or. 12, 61. See Wiemer 1995: 162–66, for textual concordances between Libanius’s Or. 12 and Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians. 105.  See Wiemer 1995: 110–11; more below.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    201

preservation of the Roman ship of state and of Roman cities lies “in the worship of higher ones,”106 just as in Himerius’s Oration 41, which highlights both the emperor’s piety and euergetism. In fact, Libanius states that Julian himself performed sacrifices.107 Mamertinus had been silent on Julian’s piety. And while Himerius and Libanius each name Helios,108 which may have been offensive to some Christians, they also employ neutral religious language that would not have been particularly offensive to anyone, such as “the higher one” (to kreitton; sing. in Himerius, pl. in Libanius), a term that Julian himself had deployed in his second panegyric on Constantius, as we have seen.109 All this suggests that Libanius kept different audiences in mind in his consular oration. Here we might consider the full praise that is accorded to the emperor’s education and piety, which are tethered indirectly to Rome’s expected changing fortunes with Persia—through his promotion of traditional cult among his soldiers, and so their proper understanding of religio or religious scrupulousness in war—and are presented rather subtly as components of the emperor’s policy to bring individuals to his side,110 a comment in which Libanius appears to be alluding to Christians.111 The rhetorician tells us that imperial eloquence was responsible for all these things,112 and it is strongly implied that it was being applied in the interest of building support for the emperor and his pending Persian campaign. Libanius relates that he is thinking here of Julian’s letters and other writings,113 perhaps letters such as those to cities that we explored above, in which the emperor displayed his clemency and carefully calibrated rhetoric. These references to Julian’s eloquence and writings reflect Libanius’s interest in imperial approval for what he was saying, and support viewing the emperor as a politician who saw panegyric as a means by which to build consensus for policy among his subjects. In fact, in keeping with Roman tradition, an overt connection is made between military success abroad and acts of piety at home.114 Before one could engage an enemy on the battlefield, the gods first had to be propitiated and their support for 106.  Lib. Or. 12, 69: ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ταύτης ἰσχυρῷ σώζεται τὸ πλοῖον, οὕτως ἐν τῇ θεραπείᾳ τῶν κρειττόνων αἱ πόλεις. 107.  Or. 12, 82. 108.  Him. Or. 41, 1; Lib. Or. 13, 35; Or. 12, 80, 83. 109.  See chapater 2, n. 207. 110.  Lib. Or. 12, 87–94, at 91: Τῇ μὲν οὖν Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῇ τοιοῦτον τεῖχος περιήλασας. εὖ δὲ ποιῶν καὶ τὸν ἄλλον μεταρρυθμίζεις ὄχλον, τὸ τοῦ Πρωτέως εἰς ἑτέρους ἐργαζόμενος. νῦν γὰρ δὴ τὸ τὴν γῆν οἰκοῦν ἀπὸ συῶν ἀτεχνῶς εἰς ἀνθρώπους μεταπλάττεται. 111.  Note Libanius’s quoting of Homer about transforming swine into men (Od. 4.455; Norman 1969: 91 n. c). 112.  Or. 12, 92: τούτων δὲ ἁπάντων αἴτιον οἱ λόγοι. 113.  Or. 12, 92. 114.  On this tradition, see Charlesworth 1943; Alföldy 1989: 349–87; Beard et al. 2013: 26–27, 43–44, 47; and Gračanin 2014.

202      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

victory in war sought out.115 And Libanius stresses Julian’s projected campaign against Persia, that Julian was on the verge of doing what Constantius had been unable or unwilling to do when he had directed Eastern affairs, that is, achieve victory in the field.116 At the start of 362, Mamertinus had focused his skill and energies on presenting Julian as a capable emperor who was fully aware of his responsibilities, one of which was the management of cities’ grain supplies, and who favored the senatorial order; there is no hint of interest in the Eastern frontier. But it is here, right after relating the Persians’ embassy to the emperor at Antioch, that Libanius presents a sea change in script from Mamertinus and even Himerius: Libanius specifically mentions blood sacrifice under Julian.117 Libanius conveys an atmosphere of sacrifices, presumably in Antioch but perhaps also more broadly in the East: “the frequent sacrifices and much blood [offerings] and the smoke of incense and the feasts of gods and of daimones [minor gods/guiding deities].”118 This evident shift in imperial messaging can be seen as a careful and gradual curation and promotion of new religious policy: Mamertinus abstains from discussing religion on 1 January 362; Himerius generally mentions the raising of temples and the conducting of religious rites in Constantinople in early 362; Libanius spotlights the atmosphere of blood sacrifice under Julian in late July 362, but does so to forge a link between this and Persian fear of Rome on 1 January 363;119 and Julian himself discusses blood sacrifice in two orations (the hymns To the Mother of the Gods and To King Helios) that date to about the same time as Libanius’s two panegyrics.120 If we are right to see this gradually changing imperial messaging on religion as a gradual promotion of new policy, then it suggests that the emperor had pragmatically considered creating some degree of consensus.121 In this light, the atmosphere of sacrifices and mana that Libanius relates above is specifically linked with expected success in the pending Persian war. Indeed, Libanius invokes those daimones who are the lords of war, implying that Julian prudently had sought to bring these to his side before any engagement with Persia.122 Remarkably, Libanius also links Julian’s acts of piety with the emperor’s preservation: the gods had

115.  See n. 122 below. 116.  Lib. Or. 12, 70–77. Cf. n. 99 above. 117.  Or. 12, 69, 79, and 82. 118.  Or. 12, 79: αἱ πυκναὶ θυσίαι καὶ τὸ αἷμα τὸ πολὺ καὶ οἱ τῶν ἀρωμάτων ἀτμοὶ καὶ θεῶν ἑστιάσεις καὶ δαιμόνων. 119.  Or. 12, 79. 120.  See chapter 4, n. 229. 121.  Cf. Amm. 22.12.3; Marcos 2019b: 371–72, for detractors of Julian’s pending campaign, some of whom were Christians. 122.  Lib. Or. 12, 88–90; cf. Or. 18, 167.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    203

protected their devotee in assassination attempts.123 Thus, traditional cult could still preserve both emperor and empire. Contrary to what some scholars have asserted about a lack of support for Julian’s religious program,124 testimony from Christian sources strengthens Libanius’s claims about an atmosphere of support for traditional cult, and suggests that Julian was responding to popular support for it as much as he was seeking to engender it.125 In fact, Julian’s supporters in Arabia, Macedonia, and Numidia honored him as “restorer of Roman religio” and “restorer of sacred rites.”126 So Libanius’s remarks were not merely aspirational; the panegyrist conveyed both the reception and expected efficacy of the emperor’s religious policy. Libanius’s description of blood sacrifice above is followed by his comment that, on account of all this, Julian is happy when he is addressed as “priest” no less than “king/emperor.”127 The orator then expounds on the frequency of blood sacrifice by the emperor himself, which Libanius tells us Julian performed within the walls of the imperial palace, presumably at Antioch, though he also may have Constantinople in mind,128 and he relates the emperor’s stop in Pessinus on the way to Antioch to pay his respects to the Mother of the gods.129 And yet, other than honoring the Magna Mater while on his way to Antioch, we are not told to whom Julian sacrificed and how. While Julian’s hymns on the Mother of the gods and Helios offer a more personalized religious system, Libanius’s panegyrics illustrate the emperor’s desire, not to promote one particular type of paganism, but to revitalize traditional cult generally.130 The curated and gradual promotion of new religious policy that I have argued for here, then, was closely connected with the promotion of new military policy as well, with the implication that Constantius’s Christianity had played a role in his difficulties with and losses to the Persians.131 By explicitly linking Julian’s public 123.  Or. 12, 84–87. 124.  See Bowersock 1978: xi, 80; Athanassiadi 1992: 110–11; Bradbury 1995; Potter 2014: 499. 125.  See Marcos 2019b: 397–98. 126.  Conti 2004: 59, no. 1: Ἰουλιανοῦ ἀυτοκράτορος Αὐγούστου ἀνίθη τὰ ἱερὰ (near Bostra); 96, no. 54: ἀνανεωτοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν (Thessalonica); 170–1, no. 167: Iuliano . . . inuicto principi restitutori libe[r] t[at]is et Ro[manae] religion[is] (Casae); 177, no. 176: restitutori sacrorum . . . (Thibilis). On epigraphic support for Julian’s religious program, see Greenwood 2014 and Marcos 2019a. 127.  Lib. Or. 12, 80: διὰ τοῦτο χαίρει καλούμενος ἱερεὺς οὐχ ἧττον ἢ βασιλεύς. See also Scholl 1994: 91–97. 128.  Or. 12, 80–82. 129.  Or. 12, 87. 130.  Cf. Smith 2012; Garcίa Ruiz 2008a: 148: “Juliano no se conformaba con reinstaurar el paganismo sino que intentó fundar una nueva religión de la que él era el sumo sacerdote.” (“Julian did not satisfy himself with reinstating paganism but attempted to found a new religion of which he was the supreme pontiff.”); Elm 2012; and Tiersch 2018. 131.  Cf. Weisweiler 2009, for Ammianus deftly making this very charge about Constantius’s Persian war; and Barnes 1998: 79–94, for Ammianus’s cutting treatment of Christians and Christianity.

204      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

displays of piety and religious scrupulousness with hopes for victory in his pending Persian expedition, Libanius can be seen presenting the emperor’s desire to build a new consensus on the eve of war. In Libanius’s remarks on religion and sacrifice, Julian’s actions and the salutary effect they are said to have are explicitly joined with the emperor’s well-being and with his success in war, which were the traditional aims of blood sacrifice. In short, Julian’s religious concern and policy are framed and advanced as proactive measures on behalf of the health and wellbeing of the empire (salus imperii) and the success of Rome’s Eastern foreign policy more than as set against “false” religious beliefs such as Christianity. Indeed, when Libanius reaches the peroration, he does so not with an exhortation to the empire’s subjects to sacrifice, but with a prayer for the emperor and his Persian campaign, and to this end he appeals to the support of a nameless deity.132 In both his panegyrics to Julian at Antioch, Libanius followed Julian’s view of the emperor as operating within a system of law, as we would expect,133 and fostering eunomia (good order), a view that Julian himself would perpetuate further in his own oration there. Moreover, when we consider Libanius’s Oration 12 in light of the increasingly strained relationship between Julian and Antioch, it would seem that Libanius partly followed Julian’s and Themistius’s examples in using praise discourse for diplomatic purposes, and in anticipation of Orations 15 and 16. On 1 January 363, Libanius publicized Julian’s imperial credentials and profile while also communicating to the Antiochenes, both pagans and Christians, that they could (and should) support his new Eastern foreign policy, and so his religious policy as well. Consistent with Julian’s legislation and with the church historians’ treatment of him, Bidez concluded that the emperor became increasingly aggressive on religious matters over the course of his short reign,134 a conclusion that is compatible with what we find in speeches of praise on Julian and his government from 362 to 363. But while Julian was an ardent promoter of traditional cult as imperial pontifex and legislator, he was also an active politician; he was well aware of the realities of power, and so we would do well to consider his religious and political aims, and his partial reliance on panegyric to explain and advance them. A DM I N I S T E R I N G A N T IO C H : E M P E R O R , P O P U L AC E , A N D ( L AC K O F ) C O N SE N SU S

Shortly after hearing Libanius’s consular oration on New Year’s Day 363, Julian began one of his best-known orations from this period and the last he composed, the caustic and seemingly self-deprecating Antiochikos [logos]/Misopogon (Ora132.  Or. 12, 100: θεῷ. 133.  See Garcίa Ruiz 2008a: 146. 134.  See n. 29 above.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    205

tion on Antioch/Beard Hater).135 This oration, which Julian directed to the populace of Antioch, is reflective of a poor relationship between sovereign and subjects, and it has long perplexed modern readers. Commentators have had difficulty defining precisely just what this oration is and what it was intended to accomplish. One has argued for the Misopogon as consistent with “normal” imperial “edicts of chastisement” to cities that had behaved badly.136 But, as another has observed, the Misopogon is “an extraordinary text, impossible to classify within the conventional limits of any literary genre.”137 This imperial oration shares characteristics and components not only with satire but also with the Platonic symposium and apologia (defense),138 which makes the Misopogon more atypical. The influence of praise discourse also has been noted.139 In fact, Julian’s Misopogon has been termed “an inverted panegyric,”140 though scholars have not fully explored just how this oration functions as a panegyric, indeed, how it functions as two panegyrics side by side, as we shall see below. Since Julian’s Misopogon displays his mastery of the basilikos logos (imperial panegyric),141 it would be instructive to assess how the emperor recalibrated this genre to advance his interests in an Antiochene context. Some commentators have concluded that Julian’s oration to Antioch represents a “failure of ritualized communication” between the emperor and the inhabitants of this city and a well-crafted public relations piece meant to obscure that failure.142 To be sure, the Misopogon is a high-grade rhetorical riposte, one in line with Julian’s other productions, such as the Epistle to Nilus and the Against Heraclius (Or. 7), in which the emperor sought to control the receptions of his relationships with these men. As I will argue, while Julian’s oration to Antioch is a complex and multivalent document, panegyric explains much of its contents and sheds light on what this oration was meant to do for both emperor and Eastern metropolis; that is, to advance Julian’s public image as a responsive and effective manager of cities, and thus as a legitimate emperor, and to punish Antioch, to guide it toward a positive relationship with its new sovereign. It appears that Julian considered and that the Antiochenes perceived his Misopogon as serving an advisory function, in 135.  On Julian’s Misopogon, see Bowder 1978: 118–22; Bowersock 1978: 103–4; Prato and Micalella 1979: 9–24*; Alonso-Nuñez 1979; Marcone 1984; Gleason 1986; Athanassiadi 1992: 201–24; Long 1993; Wiemer 1998; Janka 2008; Quiroga Puertas 2009; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011; Baker-Brian 2012; Elm 2012: 327–32; and Fontaine 2013: LX–LXXVII. 136.  Gleason 1986. 137.  Athanassiadi 1992: 202. 138.  Marcone 1984; Janka 2008. 139.  Marcone 1984; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 176–77. 140.  Marcone 1984: “un panegirico rovesciato.” 141.  Baker-Brian 2012: 270. 142.  Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011.

206      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

that it directed both city and citizen to align more closely with imperial interests and priorities. Julian composed his Antiochensis or Misopogon, as it was known to contemporaries such as Ammianus,143 while residing in this “beautiful capital of the East” prior to launching his Persian campaign.144 This rather lengthy imperial composition is presented as a dialogue between emperor and city, and it offers skillful representations of each, but it is functionally more of a monologue.145 That Julian’s oration bore two distinct titles, and ones that he himself had chosen,146 illustrates that it had distinct, dual purposes. As I will show, it was not only a kind of anti-panegyric on Antioch, but also a self-panegyric on Julian, who was quite capable of engaging in both an anti-panegyric on an opponent and in self-promotion simultaneously. Panegyric and polemic occupy the same space in Julian’s Misopogon, as we have seen in some of his other texts. Whereas panegyric could be used to praise and to enhance a subject’s profile, whether an individual or a city, polemic or anti-panegyric could do the opposite, that is, dishonor a recipient by taking aim at his/its reputation and status. The emperor produced this pronouncement after a series of poor interactions with the Antiochenes and just before leaving the city on 5 March 363,147 when he made his way toward Hierapolis (Manbij), a traditional forward operating base for emperors’ Persian campaigns.148 That Julian produced and published his oration when about to depart from Antioch has been seen as the emperor’s attempt to have the “last word” with the city.149 But his peculiar pronouncement, which seems to have been publicly posted outside the imperial palace there (see map 4),150 also can be viewed as intended to be a kind of advisory document during his absence for all in Antioch to see. As Ammianus registers it, and if so posted, he may have seen it there, the Antiochikos/Misopogon is an “invective volume,”151 and, we should note, one that served to complement Julian’s appointment of the turbulent and cruel Alexander of Heliopolis as governor of Syria in early 363.152 If Alexander had any 143.  Amm. 22.14.2: [Iulianus] . . . uolumen composuit inuectiuum, quod Antiochense uel Misopogonem appellauit. See also Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 41; and Soc. HE 3.17.9. 144.  Amm. 22.9.14: orientis apicem pulchrum. 145.  See Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 174–77. 146.  See n. 143 above. 147.  See Wiemer 1995: 189–97, 326–48; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 174–75. 148.  Amm. 23.2.6; cf. 14.7.5, 21.13.8. 149.  Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 175. 150.  See n. 158 below. 151.  Note Ammianus’s singular use of uolumen: 22.14.2: uolumen . . . inuectiuum; cf. 21.10.7: orationem acrem et inuectiuam . . . scripserat ad senatum; 22.11.11: missoque edicto acri oratione (ad Alexandriam). 152.  Amm. 23.2.3; PLRE 1.40–41, Alexander 5. Cf. Lenski 2016: 242, who connects Julian’s appointment of Alexander, wrongly I think, with civic upheaval at Heliopolis, in the interest of showing cause and effect between appointment and upheaval. But Julian appointed Alexander in early 363, whereas

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    207

doubts about how to govern Antioch during Julian’s absence, the Misopogon would have served as a very potent and perhaps visible reminder. In fact, Libanius states that Alexander administered Antioch well but hurled harsh words at the city council in the process, although it is not clear whether this refers to a speech or a letter.153 As Julian had reminded the Roman senator Nilus in and by an epistle,154 emperors could chastise the citizenry in word instead of deed, but, as far as we know, none did so in the same context and way that Julian did. To be sure, some of Julian’s predecessors on occasion wielded the imperial pen over the sword.155 For example, Constantine had written (now-lost) letters upbraiding the bishop Arius that were posted publicly throughout cities.156 But these letters were directed against a single individual, and they apparently did not include a portrayal of the emperor himself nor of a particular city, as is the case in the Antiochikos/Misopogon. Better parallels for Constantine’s letters are Julian’s aforementioned oration against the Cynic Heraclius and his Epistle to Nilus, who was publicly lambasted in a lengthy and humiliating “letter.” Moreover, according to the late antique biographer of Marcus Aurelius, Marcus had responded to those who spoke badly of him as emperor—for appearing a hard man in accordance with his training in philosophy—with a speech or letter.157 We should also consider the precise form that Julian’s oration on Antioch may have taken originally: the emperor, we are told, had “added” this oration onto the Tetrapylon of the Elephants, outside the imperial palace at Antioch (see map 4).158 the upheaval at Heliopolis seems to have occurred by mid-362, not long after Julian’s accession, when other polities, such as Alexandria and Cappadocian Caesarea, erupted in violence. We do not know when, exactly, Julian appointed Alexander to his governorship, but it seems right to conclude that his appointment immediately preceded or followed the Misopogon, which the emperor published in late February/early March. 153.  Lib. Or. 15, 74. 154.  Jul. Ep. 50 Wright (82 Bidez); more below. 155.  See Gleason 1986: 114–18. 156.  Soc. 1.9.64. 157.  SHA Marc. Ant. 22.5–6. No doubt that Marcus tended to be disciplined in his habits in pursuit of a balanced life in keeping with Stoicism, but it is tempting here to see a subtle allusion to Julian himself, who was criticized heavily by some for his own exertions and ascetic lifestyle. On the SHA dating to the reign of Julian, see Baynes 1926. Cf. Cameron 2011: 743–82, for a dating of 375/80. 158.  Malal. Chron. 13.19 (Dindorf 1831: 328): περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν Ἀντιοχέων λόγον . . . προσέθηκε. On the Tetrapylon of the Elephants outside the imperial palace at Antioch, see Saliou 2009: 240–42. It seems that many major cities had tetrapyla, which were kinds of triumphal monuments. There is a wellrestored tetrapylon at Lepcis Magna from the reign of Septimius Severus, and the remains of another at Carnuntum, the so-called Heidentor, dated to the reign of Constantius II. Further, the Expositio totius mundi et gentium records that tetrapyla could be found at Palestinian Caesarea (26) and Bostra (38). See also Rougé 1966: 246 and 270. But the tetrapylon at Antioch may have been something unique. Cf. Reinsch 2009, who expresses doubts on the posting of the Misopogon but does not consider that other cities had tetrapyla and that emperors could post rather lengthy epigraphic texts, such as Augustus’s Res gestae (see Cooley 2010) and Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices (see ILS 642; Lauffer 1971).

208      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

We do not know what exactly the Tetrapylon of the Elephants was, but it may be that “added onto” here means “inscribed,”159 not that a series of papyri were posted. It is well known that emperors, on occasion, had their various pronouncements— epistles, edicts, rescripts, subscripts, and speeches—publicly posted in epigraphic form. For example, in the early empire, the city of Aphrodisias inscribed a letter from Caesar Augustus that responded to a civic petition from Samos.160 Later, Eusebius states that Maximinus Daza had inscribed imperial edicts against Christians on pillars in Tyre and other Eastern cities, presumably including Antioch.161 Subsequently, the city of Orcistus posted Constantine’s positive responses to its petitions in epigraphic form, just as the city councilors of Hispellum chose to inscribe Constantine’s positive reply to their own petition publicly.162 If the Misopogon did indeed take this more durable form, then Libanius’s responses in Orations 15 and 16 become more intelligible—the emperor’s punishment of the city was seen as an indictment branded on Antioch, and so one that needed to be remedied all the more quickly.163 In any event, Julian’s communication, whether posted as an inscription or otherwise, was in line with established imperial practice. What was uncommon, however, was for such a publicly posted pronouncement to be geared toward punishing instead of rewarding a city, as is certainly the case in the examples of Augustus and Constantine. When the punitive aspect of Julian’s oration to Antioch is considered alongside its being “added onto” a prominent gate complex, perhaps a triumphal monument or gate,164 that is, in a notable public space, then the emperor’s oration takes on the form of a pillar of indictment (stelographia) against the city,165 and is more in line with Maximinus’s indictments (antigraphai) above.

159.  Perhaps this tetrapylon was a monument that commemorated Galerius’s Persian victory in 298 (Leadbetter 2009: 235). In his edition of John Malalas, Dindorf (1831) noted that προσέθηκε (from προτίθημι) is a variant in the manuscripts, instead preferring προέθηκε. However, προσέθηκε (from προστίθημι) could subtly indicate that Julian had his oration “added onto” the Tetrapylon of the Elephants in a form more durable than papyrus, such as a bronze or stone inscription (cf. Downey 1961: 393–94 and nn. 88–89; and n. 158 above). Cf. Reinsch 2009: 250. 160.  Oliver 1989: 25–26, no. 1; Sherk 1994: 7, no. 3. 161.  Euseb. HE 9.7.1. Cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 4, 93.2, for Gregory’s probable reference to Maximinus’s publicly posted pronouncements. For the correct form of “Daza” instead of “Daia,” see Mackay 1999: 207–09. 162.  On these two epigraphic texts, see Lenski 2016: 96–108 (Orcistus) and 114–30 (Hispellum). 163.  On Libanius’s Orations 15 and 16, see nn. 185 and 187 below. Also, Julian had alluded subtly to Libanius as a virtuous author of orations (Misop. 354C), which Libanius may have viewed as an invitation to respond. 164.  Saliou 2009: 241; see nn. 158 and 159 above. 165.  Cf. Elm 2012: 345–48, who discusses Gregory’s Orations 4 and 5 against Julian as serving the same function.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    209

Consequently, while Julian’s oration on and to Antioch can be seen as part of a long tradition of imperial chastisement by means of edicts and public letters generally, the Misopogon nonetheless in many respects is sui generis, because when examined closely its combination of imagination, erudition, and wit is unique in comparison with other imperial pronouncements that also survive.166 The Misopogon is a by-product of Julian’s particular (public) personality and his preference for using the written word to advance his interests, and against a city with a long history of exercising parrhesia (freedom of speech) with emperors.167 As we have seen in several different epistles, Julian consistently communicated in support of his public posture and policy, to punish his opponents and to maintain civic order, among other aims. In my view, the Misopogon is abnormal as an imperial pronouncement in its language and dual structure, but normative as a Julianic response to civic problems. Here we might recall that, when an upheaval erupted in Alexandria, Julian responded by issuing an epistle-edict rebuking the city and its citizens in very pointed and personal language. Julian knew that as emperor he always had recourse to physical force and coercion to affect the atmospheres in cities, which he explicitly notes in his first extant epistle to the Alexandrians: “For authority to be respected and the greater rigorousness and the soundness of government would in no way overlook bold acts of a people, but would cleanse it by a rather harsh remedy just as a severe contagion.”168 Instead, he preferred “recommendations and arguments” as proper remedies for what ailed Alexandria.169 This sentiment and approach is apparent not only in his letter to this great metropolis but also in missives to Bostra and Edessa, though to a lesser extent.170 As with his letter to Alexandria above, Julian’s subsequent oration to Antioch in early 363 allowed him to convey his severe displeasure and yet to display a measure of clemency to a city in what was a delicate balancing act.171 Analysis of these imperial documents also reveals that Julian used his “letters” and “orations” as ways to guide civic behavior, particularly in response to civic disturbances of various types—the widely supported lynching of the bishop George at Alexandria, intra-Christian strife in Edessa, mild but notable intercommunal unrest at Antioch, and the potential for

166.  Cf. Gleason 1986: 106, 114–18. 167.  See appendix D. 168.  Jul. Ep. ad Alex. 21 Wright (60 Bidez) 380C: Τὸ γὰρ τῆς ἐξουσίας ἀκαταφρόνητον καὶ τὸ ἀπηνέστερον καὶ καθαρὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς οὔποτ’ ἂν δήμου περιίδοι τόλμημα μὴ καθάπερ νόσημα χαλεπὸν πικροτέρῳ διακαθᾶραι φαρμάκῳ; Marcos 2019b: 438–39. 169.  Ep. 21 Wright (60 Bidez) 380C: παραίνεσιν καὶ λόγους; Marcos 2019b: 380, 395. 170.  Jul. Ep. ad Bostr. 41 Wright (114 Bidez) and Ep. 40 Wright (115 Bidez). 171.  See Marcos 2019b: 421–39, for additional examples of such a balancing act with respect to Antioch and other cities.

210      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

these in Bostra—and, I argue, illustrates his interest in maintaining open lines of communication. And yet the emperor could close lines of communication as well. As early as December 361/early 362, Julian dispatched an interesting and biting letter to Nilus Dionysius, an obscure senator of Rome.172 This Western senator had received an invitation from Julian to join him at his court for promotion to some office during civil war in 361, but he declined and then added insult to injury by replying to the emperor with a letter displaying rather bold parrhesia.173 As with the Cynic Heraclius, Julian avenged himself on a self-proclaimed philosopher by means of the written word, specifically by, among other things, casting Nilus as Thersites, whom Odysseus had punished with his staff in full view of their fellows, with the implication that Julian was likening himself to Odysseus and employing his epistle in place of a kingly cudgel.174 After assaulting Nilus for his (lack of) erudition and character and doing so publicly—the emperor even declares that he will disseminate his response widely,175 presumably to other Western senators, such as L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus176—Julian concludes his missive by renouncing their friendship (renuntiatio amicitiae).177 The treatment that Julian subjected Nilus to in 362 would be partly replicated on a larger, civic scale in 363, on the freewheeling and free-speaking Antiochenes. In fact, Libanius connects and compares the punishments in these two cases.178 Julian’s relationship with the people of Antioch was to some extent the outcome of serious tensions between Antiochenes’ long-held license to voice their discontent to resident emperors, and emperors’ consistent, in-person reliance on Antioch as their staging ground for Eastern administration and frontier operations.179 These tensions would help to explain breaches between Antioch and its emperors before and after Julian, diverse emperors such as Caracalla, Diocletian, Valens, and Theodosius—pagans and Christians180—all of whom waged wars against Persia or maintained the readiness to do so from Antioch. Moreover, it is evident that Julian was interested in preserving (or rehabilitating) his public image in the eyes of the

172.  Jul. Ep. ad Nil. 50 Wright (82 Bidez); PLRE 1.632, Dionysius Nilus 2. On which, see Wiemer 1996; Malosse 2008; and Van Hoof 2013: 399–402. 173.  Ep. ad Nil. 445B. See also n. 172 above. 174.  Ep. ad Nil. 445B. 175.  Ep. ad Nil. 446B. 176.  Ep. ad Nil. 445B; PLRE 1.863–65, L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus signo Phosphorius 3. 177.  Marcos 2018: 276 n. 5. 178.  Lib. Or. 18, 198; Gleason 1986: 115. 179.  See appendix D and n. 268 below. Cf. Tiersch 2018, who considers Julian and the Antiochenes’ dispute being about Hellenism. 180.  See n. 179 above.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    211

city.181 And yet, viewing Julian’s oration simply as a bid to overturn the negative image that the Antiochenes had of him overlooks the multifaceted aims of this complex imperial document; it would seem that the emperor cared relatively little for changing what the Antiochenes thought of him in the short term,182 rather he desired to influence their future behavior, their deeds, which in turn could influence opinion or belief. As I will argue, the Antiochikos/Misopogon is best seen as the by-product and continuation of the honor game between emperor and city, one in which panegyric assisted Julian in accomplishing several aims at once. Consistent with the judgment of the fifth-century ecclesiastical historian Socrates,183 modern scholars have noted how Julian’s Misopogon was meant to dishonor Antioch and how it succeeded in doing just that,184 but they have not appreciated fully how the emperor’s communication also reflects his interest in shaping Antiochene behavior prospectively. To be sure, Julian aimed his oration at undercutting Antioch’s prestige as a vital imperial residence, and Libanius prepared responses in kind in two distinct orations—one addressed to the emperor (Or. 15) and another to the city of Antioch (Or. 16)—that were meant to help reverse Julian’s new stance regarding the city.185 There can be no doubt that Julian’s framing of his relationship with Antioch in his oration reflects his desire to affect the reception of that relationship,186 but the same can be said for Libanius, who cared as much (if not more) about his own reputation and that of his native city as he did about Julian’s memory.187 Petitions and direct appeals were the primary means of communicating grievances to an emperor, and that avenue was still open to the Antiochenes, as Julian himself implies when he mentions his lack of leisure on account of deciding cases.188 This reference, in addition to the publishing of the Antiochikos/Misopogon itself, was Julian’s way of demonstrating that he was a responsive emperor and that further communication was still possible, since the Antiochenes could be expected to respond to his oration by appealing to him, as 181.  Athanassiadi 1992: 213; Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 167. 182.  See Lib. Or. 15, 77, 86; Or. 16, 53; Or. 1, 132; Amm. 23.2.5; Soc. 3.17.6. Julian designated Tarsus, not Antioch, as his winter residence for 363/4, though we do not know what Julian actually would have done, since he died in Persia in June 363. 183.  Soc. 3.17. 184.  See n. 267 below. 185.  On these two orations, see Wiemer 1995: 198–246. 186.  Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 175–77. 187.  E.g., note how Libanius positively and contemporaneously describes Julian’s entry into Syria and the emperor’s request for a speech from him (Ep. 736 Foerster, 88 Norman), an entry and request he modifies and downgrades later in his Autobiography (Or. 1, 120). Cf. Norman 1992: 186–87 n. a, for a different view of Libanius’s later version. See also Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 178–82, for Libanius’s approaches in his Orations 15 and 16. 188.  Jul. Misop. 365D: ἡ περὶ τὰς κρίσεις ἡμῶν ἀσχολία. The text used here and throughout is that of Nesselrath 2015.

212      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

indeed they did when they dispatched an embassy to him after his departure from the city.189 As has been convincingly argued, the Misopogon dates to just before the emperor’s departure from Antioch in early March, and so the conclusion that this oration represents “Julian’s attempt to have the last word” with the city.190 However, as we have noted above, he could only have expected the Antiochenes to appeal to him in response. Given that petitions or embassies to the emperor as a means of communication and redress remained open to the Antiochenes,191 we can see Julian’s Misopogon as an extreme kind of rhetorical “reset button,” one in which the burden for seeking reconciliation was shifted away from the emperor and onto the people of Antioch, as we would expect in such a power imbalance—Julian could always favor Antioch’s rival cities, such as Laodicea and Apamea, to teach Antioch a lesson, just as Septimius Severus had.192 Indeed, Libanius notes the lesson that Julian had already taught Cappadocian Caesarea, and adduces it as a warning to the Antiochenes.193 Julian could not control how his subjects reacted to him, but he could point them in the right direction.194 Further, unlike in his Epistle to Nilus, the emperor seemingly expressed interest in reconciliation with his wayward subjects,195 which highlights that future communication was still possible despite his anger—hence Libanius’s written appeals to him ca. mid-March 363 and afterward.196 This interpretation supports viewing Julian’s complicated double oration as partly intended to be a kind of advisory document or a paraenesis during his absence in Persia, one meant to shape civic behavior.197 This seems to be how Libanius understood Julian’s pronouncement, for in one of his immediate responses to the Misopogon in Oration 16, which is addressed to his fellow Antiochenes, Libanius proposes that Antioch should adopt measures in keeping with what the emperor appears to prescribe for the city in his biting oration. That is, that the 189.  Jul. Ep. ad Lib. 58 Wright (98 Bidez) 399C; Lib. Ep. ad Iul. 802 Foerster (98 Norman); Or. 16, 1. 190.  Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 174–75, at 175. 191.  Jul. Ep. ad Lib. 58 Wright (98 Bidez) 399C; Lib. Or. 16, 1–2; Or. 1, 132. 192.  For Septimius Severus’s lessons to Antioch, see Birley 1988: 114; and n. 275 below. See also Jul. Caes. 312D, where Julian describes Severus as a “punisher” (κολαστικός). Cf. Lib. Or. 18, 187–88; Norman 1969: 403 n. a, 404, n. a, for Julian judging between Laodicea and Apamea in the persons of their philosophers and using these philosophers to encourage their respective cities toward virtue. 193.  Lib. Or. 16, 14; more below. 194.  Cf. Lenski 2016: 209, 281, on Constantine and any emperor’s power over his cities and subjects. 195.  Jul. Misop. 352C: ἐγώ τε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν ἀπέχθειαν λύσαντες. Julian offers an end to the enmity between emperor and populace after having admitted his narrow-mindedness and having ascribed it to his early education under Mardonius. I see no compelling reason to disbelieve the emperor here. Of course, he wanted reconciliation on his terms. See also nn. 224 and 242 below. 196.  See Jul. Ep. 58 Wright (98 Bidez) (in response to a letter from Libanius); and Lib. Or. 15. 197.  See Pernot 2015: 94–99, for the epideictic speech as paraenesis.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    213

Antiochenes, of their own free will, should reduce their high degree of conspicuous consumption and the number of horse races they attended almost daily.198 In short, Libanius recognized that it was up to the Antiochenes to seize the initiative in repairing their relationship with Julian,199 as the emperor no doubt intended. Let us now explore the emperor’s use of panegyric in his double oration for what it reveals about his motives, upon which interpretations of the Misopogon depend. Panegyric and Polemic: Two Logoi in One for Emperor and Populace Near the exordium of his oration, Julian makes several clever strikes against his detractors in Antioch all at once: by referring to the barbarians beyond the Rhine, the emperor alludes to his victories in Gaul and Germany, implies that the Antiochenes could be next if he so desired, and mocks the latter’s taunting of him as tantamount to the dissonant and poor-quality bellowing of barbarians in Alamannia.200 After thus implicitly promoting his military career, Julian then offers a window into his civilian behavior as Caesar during his residency at Paris,201 seemingly to illustrate that his asceticism, which had been on full display in Antioch, was consistent and genuine. Indeed, this discussion comes on the heels of his commenting on his choice of a meager diet and little sleep there,202 qualities that are often discussed in panegyric, such as in Libanius’s consular oration to Julian just a few months before.203 We also find Julian discussing his education and upbringing,204 which would seem to have been unnecessary, given that Julian’s first panegyric on Constantius and his epistles to Greek cities and communities during civil war had apparently reached Antioch.205 That the emperor reaffirms his Greek paideia here, in one instance by citing Plato’s Laws on a ruler’s concern for his subjects and self-restraint,206 can be seen as his presentation of his further qualifications for advising the Antiochenes on their public behavior and on how they should understand him.207 In fact, in noting

198.  Lib. Or. 16, 40–44; cf. Jul. Misop. 340A, 343D. See also Wiemer 1995: 210–13. 199.  Lib. Or. 16, 41. 200.  Jul. Misop. 337C–338A. See also 359B, 364A–C, and 366C. 201.  Misop. 340D–342A. 202.  Misop. 340B–C. 203.  Lib. Or. 12, 31. 204.  Jul. Misop. 351A–354C. 205.  In addition to Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians (chapter 3), which presumably spread eastward (cf. Misop. 360C–D), see Lib. Or. 14, 29–30, who quotes from the Epistle to the Corinthians. 206.  Misop. 354B–C. See also Baker-Brian 2012: 275–77. 207.  Note also that the emperor had opened his Misopogon by comparing himself with the tried and tested poets Alcaeus of Mytilene and Archilochus, and so, by implication, had framed his oration as a witty and pleasurable response to his own critics’ foolishness, a response that he implies was meant to help him to lighten the burden of ruling (337A–B).

214      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

that as emperor he is “guardian of the laws,” Julian observed that the Antiochenes had disregarded both him and them.208 He continued to believe in the power of self-praise and blame to advance his interests, and their ability to occupy the same space in a text, for he signaled near the exordium that both these aspects of power would figure prominently in his oration.209 After mocking his own physical appearance,210 the rhetorician-emperor parades his sheer distaste for the theater and the hippodrome.211 And yet he states that he hardly ever (oligakis) attends horse races,212 which indicates that the emperor (in his mind) had compromised and was communicating that he had done so; he attended these spectacles less than his immediate predecessors, but he did not abstain from attending them altogether.213 Indeed, the emperor subsequently emphasizes his dislike for the theater and for horse races,214 suggesting that he had conveyed this dislike to the Antiochenes by his relatively low attendance record and they had not gotten the message. And Julian’s mention of how his brother (Gallus) and cousin (Constantius), conversely, both enjoyed attending the hippodrome regularly has the effect of throwing into relief not only his immediate predecessors’ fondness for public spectacle but also his legitimacy as a Constantinian emperor in the process.215 The highlighting of Julian’s legitimacy is quite pronounced in Libanius’s Oration 12, as we have seen, and it is also of some concern in the Misopogon.216 In the midst of relating his upbringing, the emperor found it useful to declare that empire had come to him unsought, indeed that it was foisted on him, in what is clearly an instance of recusatio imperii,217 a claim that Julian had already made in his Epistle to the Athenians. If the emperor’s chastisement was to have a meaningful and 208.  Misop. 356D: νομοφύλακας; cf. Or. 3, 88D: φύλαξ δὲ ὢν ἀγαθὸς τῶν νόμων; Ep. ad Them. 261A: ὑπηρέτης καὶ φύλαξ τῶν νόμων. See also Prato and Marcone 2013: 338. 209.  Misop. 338B: τὸ γὰρ εἰς ἑαυτὸν γράφειν οὔτε ἐπαινοὺς οὔτε ψόγους εἴργει νόμος οὐδείς; cf. 367A–B. 210.  Misop. 338B–339C; cf. 349C. 211.  Misop. 339C–340B. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 32, 4–5, 32–33, 41, 46, 74, 81, for a similarly and consistently low opinion of the theater and the hippodrome and the Alexandrians’ poor behavior there in a speech that almost certainly influenced Julian when he wrote his Misopogon. 212.  Misop. 340A. Cf. Lib. Ep. 736 Foerster (88 Norman); Or. 18, 170; Amm. 21.10.2; and Zos. 3.11.4, who notes that Julian did not spend an entire day at the hippodrome. 213.  Misop. 339D, 340A, 354D, 357D–358A. Julian himself tells us that he would attend horse races only during the festivals of the gods (340A); cf. Bradbury 1995: 354–55. But which festivals is he referring to? 214.  Misop. 344A, 351A–D, 354D, and 357D–358A. 215.  Misop. 340A. Julian also includes his uncle, Julianus or perhaps Constantine, as an avid attendee of the races. 216.  See Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 175, who note at Misop. 357A–D how Julian sets himself “against the implicit contention that he might be a usurper,” among other things. 217.  Misop. 352C–D.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    215

lasting impact on the Antiochenes, then his legitimacy and authority had to be reiterated and reified, especially in light of the populace having communicated disapproval. Much of his Antiochene oration is a carefully calibrated response to Antioch’s criticisms, some of which may have obliquely impugned his right to rule. By focusing on their emperor’s beard and ridiculing it so emphatically, the people of Antioch had set him apart from his immediate, clean-shaven Constantinian predecessors. There also may be an imputation in Antiochene criticism of Julian’s distaste for horse races that a love for these was “Constantinian” and proper, and so that he was standing apart from his family and neglecting what was expected of him as emperor by not attending such entertainments more regularly. Libanius relates that the emperor had attended horse races shortly after his arrival in Antioch,218 that is, shortly before Libanius delivered his “address” (Or. 13). Thus, while Julian attended these spectacles in the city less than his immediate predecessors, he nonetheless was well aware of their importance and did participate in them, albeit not as often as the Antiochenes expected. And advising or managing Antioch’s expectations of him is a prime aim of the Misopogon, an aim that Julian advanced by communicating his expectations of his subjects in turn. While Libanius had focused on Julian’s worthiness in holding the imperial office, the emperor inverts this theme and applies it to the populace of Antioch, whom he depicts as relatively unworthy subjects. Indeed, Julian’s “anti-panegyric” on Antioch—for this is how he conceives of it, literally “in place of an encomium,”219 whereby the emperor adduces that the Antiochenes are imitating their ancestors, which, in the persons of Seleucus and Antiochus, are not presented in a complimentary fashion—begins in earnest by relating the founding of Antioch under Seleucus and tracing the contemporary “soft living” of the city’s inhabitants back to its founder and his son Antiochus.220 In this way, Julian attacks Antioch’s reputation and contrasts its citizens unfavorably with the Athenians, with whom Julian had resided prior to his promotion to Caesar in late 355 and with whom he claimed a close affinity.221 He also unfavorably compares the Antiochenes, who are sons of Greeks, with his family, which is Thracian in origin, that is, Danubian, and so uncivilized (or ungovernable), although he himself is Greek in his habits.222 This rhetorical approach allowed Julian to present his audience with appositional and oppositional versions of himself and Antioch.223

218.  Lib. Ep. 736 Foerster (88 Norman). 219.  Jul. Misop. 349A: ἀντ’ ἐγκωμίων. 220.  Misop. 347A–348B. For the origin, way of being, and actions and virtues of a city as theoretical panegyrical topoi, see Pernot 2015: 44. 221.  Misop. 348C. 222.  Misop. 350C–D, 367C; cf. 348C–D; Syme 1983: 64–66. See also Or. 2, 118D. 223.  See Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 175–76.

216      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

The Antiochikos/Misopogon thus is two logoi in one—one for the emperor and another for the city, one for self-promotion and another for punishment and advisement. What Julian communicates to the people of Antioch is that, while he is well aware that his habits and theirs often clash, he is also aware of the need to be mild and to display forbearance to those at odds with him.224 In addition to a “failure of ritualized communication,” we can read Julian’s Misopogon as a by-product of his and the Antiochenes’ failure to form a consensus and to cooperate within an established framework of imperial custom and law225—hence his recourse to producing an oration. Indeed, this particular failure, that of a lack of or a poor degree of cooperation, becomes more evident in light of Julian’s successful six-month stay at Constantinople, a stay that saw the emperor seeking to build consensus with the Senate of Constantinople and that apparently was not marred by any popular disapproval, explicit or otherwise.226 This contrast is all the more striking because Constantinople had been partly founded as a Christian city.227 But by the time he had reached Antioch in late July 362, Julian had updated his religious policy and messaging, as we have seen. In fact, the emperor had chosen Antioch as the metropolis at which to promote Hellenism, which contributed to the failure of his residency there.228 When we remember that Julian produced this oration on the eve of his departure from the city, it becomes evident that his Antiochikos is not just an “antipanegyric,” in which the emperor inverted the rules of Menander generally. More specifically, his oration is also an original and cleverly inverted “speech of leavetaking” (suntaktikos logos).229 As we have seen, Julian censures the Antiochenes for their “soft” character and habits, for their excessive love of horse races and theatrical performances, in contrast to his own personal austerity—thus his stated desire to leave Antioch for another city,230 presumably Tarsus. In other words, the emperor relates the exact opposite of what Menander had of course suggested that one who is leaving a city should do: “A person who is taking leave of another is clearly distressed at the separation.”231 In delivering his caustic “speech of leavetaking” to the citizens of Antioch, Julian was declaring anything but distress at 224.  Jul. Misop. 349B: ὁ δὲ τῷ τὰ ἐναντία ζηλοῦντι νέμων τὴν συγγνώμην εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ πρᾳότατος. See also n. 195 above. 225.  See Misop. 337B, 338A–B, 342B, 343D, 352C; Lib. Or. 16, 23; Or. 18, 195; cf. Lib. Or. 15, 23; Downey 1961: 390. 226.  That Constantinopolitans apparently did not disapprove of Julian in public would partly speak to the emperor’s neutral religious policy. 227.  Dagron 1974: 37–47; Lenski 2015. Cf. Barnes 2014: 126–27, for a completely Christian city. 228.  See Tiersch 2018. 229.  See Men. Rhet. 2.430.10–434.9 (2.14 Race); Quiroga Puertas 2009: 132. 230.  Jul. Misop. 364D, 366A, 370B. 231.  Men. Rhet. 2.430.10–11, trans. Russell and Watson (2.14.1 Race): Ὁ συνταττόμενος δῆλός ἐστιν ἀνιώμενος ἐπὶ τῷ χωρισμῷ.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    217

their separation. The uniqueness and originality of this imperial pronouncement are even more manifest when we consider it as a skillfully inverted panegyric and speech of leave-taking aimed at dishonoring Antioch. Certainly members of the educated elite in the city, in addition to Libanius, took careful notice—hence Libanius’s own orations in reply, whereby the orator presented himself as a kind of mediator on the highest political and literary stage. And yet Julian not only conveyed his animus against Antioch but also presented his religious program, first when reminding the Antiochenes that the gods had decreed that he should win against Constantius during civil war by removing the latter altogether,232 which advertises Julian’s bloodless accession to sole rule and again implies a warning. This statement on Julian’s divinely ordained accession follows his remark on the Antiochenes’ mocking of certain items on his coinage,233 although it is not certain that the emperor is referring to his “bull coinage” or, if so, that the point at issue was religious in nature.234 When Julian visited the temples and the Antiochenes shouted approval, he responded to the crowds gathered outside with the pointed comment that they had communicated in bad form, that solemn silence is what mattered there, not acclamations for the emperor.235 Later, Julian relates that the people were again at odds with him because of their “atheism,”236 that civic notables despised him for his price controls during a food shortage,237 and that nearly all despised him for his (relative) lack of interest in the theater and hippodrome. In a well-known and often-cited remark, the emperor also registers his disappointment in finding a lonely priest with but a single goose as an offering in the Temple of Apollo at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch;238 however, this statement need not be taken as representative of Antiochene support for the cultus deorum overall, since Julian the emperor-rhetorician may have singled out the episode for the sake of effect, to stimulate increased religious practice relative to his expectations.239 To be sure, it was a particular irritant to Julian that the Antiochenes did not engage in public sacrifices as much as he 232.  Jul. Misop. 357B–C. 233.  Misop. 355D. 234.  See Szidat 1981, who sees the bull as a religious symbol; and chapter 4, nn. 175 and 176. 235.  Jul. Misop. 344B–345B. 236.  Misop. 357D: ἀθεότητα; cf. 362C; a term Julian applies to the “Galileans,” that is, Christians, though relatively irreligious pagans also may be meant. See also Marcos 2020. 237.  Misop. 357D–358A. On the conflict over the grain supply, see Pack 1986: 363–77. See also Matthews 2007: 408–13. 238.  Misop. 362A–B. 239.  See Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 173, for the sensible view that Julian’s religious policy was not doomed to fail in Antioch. On Julian’s remarks at 362A–B, see Prato and Micalella 1979: 142 n. 60,16ss. The Misopogon is a highly rhetorical pronouncement. For Julian’s expectations, see Jul. Ep. ad Arsac. 22 Wright (84 Bidez). The authenticity of this letter has been disputed (see Van Nuffelen 2002; Bouffartigue 2005), but it may still convey Julian’s genuine expectations.

218      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

would have liked,240 but he offers this as a counterpoise to his relative neglect of the theater and hippodrome by showing that the Antiochenes, in turn, neglected the traditional spiritual life and well-being of their city. Julian even implies that he had undertaken his visits to public temples and acts of piety not only for his benefit but also for the very well-being of the Antiochenes.241 This presentation suggests that the emperor was communicating the need for a new consensus and that both emperor and populace had hitherto failed to build one.242 To further underscore his understanding of their relationship and his sentiments against the Antiochenes, Julian adduces an exemplum (memorable precedent) of Cato the Younger, who had visited their city during the Late Republic and left Antioch in disgust after its citizens had assembled, not to greet him, but to welcome Demetrius, a wealthy freedman of Pompey.243 The rhetorician-emperor seems to use the Stoic Cato here as a kind of stand-in for himself (just as he had used Achilles in his Oration 3) and infers by association that he too will leave Antioch in disgust.244 Nonetheless, this should not preclude the possibility that Julian contemplated returning at some later date, for, in addition to his apparent openness to reconciliation,245 the books that he valued highly and had deposited in the Temple of Trajan remained in Antioch and were not transferred to Tarsus.246 Near the peroration, Julian states explicitly what he had hinted at near the exordium when referring to his campaigns against the Alamanni, that he could punish the Antiochenes physically, but adds here near the conclusion that he will not do so.247 Instead, by implication, the Antiochikos itself is the Antiochenes’ punishment, and from Julian’s perspective a more fitting and effective one because the inhabitants of the city had chosen to pelt him with weighty words.248 Two central themes of the emperor’s pronouncement are self-restraint or moderation (metriotes) and mildness or clemency (praotes), themes that he repeatedly stresses throughout (and that are evident elsewhere) and presents as indicative of his good rulership.249 We have already seen these key monarchical virtues in Julian’s Epistle to the Athenians, in which he described himself as mild and measured.250 In the 240.  Misop. 361D–363B. 241.  Misop. 363D; cf. 361D–363C. 242.  See Misop. 345C, for a glimpse of Julian’s interest in accommodation with the Antiochenes, which focuses on their acceptance of and cooperation with him; and nn. 195 and 224 above. 243.  Misop. 358A–359A. On Julian’s deployment of Cato here, see Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2013. 244.  Cf. Misop. 364D, 366A, 370B. 245.  See nn. 195, 224, and 242 above. 246.  See Eunap. Fr. 29.1 (Blockley); cf. Jul. Epp. 38, 23 Wright (106, 107 Bidez); Downey 1961: 396. 247.  Misop. 364C. 248.  See n. 200 above. 249.  Misop. 360D: πρᾷον; 361B: ἡ πρᾳότης; 365B: τὸ σωφρονεῖν; 365D: πρᾳότης . . . μετὰ σωφροσύνης; and 368D: μέτριον (with respect to the cost of grain). 250.  Ep. ad Athen. 278C: πρᾷον ἐμαυτὸν παρασχὼν καὶ μέτριον; see chapter 3.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    219

Misopogon, Julian redeploys these adjectives and self-descriptions in order to stress not only that he is a moderate emperor in a general sense, but also that his production of the oration itself, in place of physical measures, is an exercise in and specific example of his mildness and moderation. Notably, in an instance of self-panegyric and promotion,251 the emperor closes his oration with the virtue “mildness.”252 Here mildness is made synonymous with benevolence and is connected with his responsiveness, for Julian asserts to the Antiochenes that he had taken an active interest in dispensing justice by personally hearing appeals to him (appellatio ad Caesarem), that he had intervened on Antioch’s behalf during a food shortage by imposing price controls on grain,253 that he had granted tax remissions to them,254 much to their lack of gratitude,255 and that he had increased the size of the city’s curial order so as to place it on par with other great metropolises,256 perhaps a reference to Rome and Constantinople. In addition to his renovation of the Temple of Apollo at Daphne, Julian’s good deeds (beneficia) above portray him as a euergetes or benefactor of the city, an image he consciously fostered.257 Further, the terms “mild” and “mildness” above were not confined only to his manner of rule in the Misopogon, for we find that Julian also employed them in his letters in reference to the proper administration of Alypius, one of his officials, and to his treatment of Christians.258 For all Julian’s anger with the citizens of Antioch, “mildness” was still foremost in his mind and still disseminated as one of his particular traits and virtues, though, as we have seen with his threat to never return to Antioch and his subsequent appointment of the turbulent and cruel Alexander as governor of Syria, relative mildness. One of the emperor’s motives for producing his complex oration was to defend the measures that he had taken during the aforementioned food shortage at 251.  Julian even goes so far as to admit subsequently that part of what he has discussed is tantamount to self-praise: Misop. 367A–B. 252.  Misop. 371B: ἡ πρᾳότης. 253.  Misop. 350A, 365D. See also n. 237 above and n. 266 below. 254.  Misop. 365B, 366D–367A, 367D. For Julian’s legislation on taxes and liturgies, see SchmidtHofner 2020: 137–44. On emperors’ tax remissions as beneficia, see Millar 1992: 428–30. On Hadrian’s civic benefactions, see Boatwright 2003: 83–107, esp. 88–94, for his tax remissions. 255.  Misop. 367B. 256.  Misop. 367D–368A. 257.  For the renovation of the Temple of Apollo, see Downey 1961: 385; and Hunt 1998: 69. See Jul. Misop. 367D, for the emperor’s previous plan to make Antioch “greater and more powerful”; cf. Lib. Or. 15, 52, for Julian’s stated intent to turn Antioch into a “city of marble.” 258.  Ep. 7 Wright (10 Bidez) 403D: Περὶ δὲ τὴν διοίκησιν τῶν πραγμάτων ὅτι δραστηρίως ἅμα καὶ πράως . . . πραότητα καὶ σωφροσύνην. This letter has been dated to early 361 while Julian was in Gaul; Ep. 40 Wright (115 Bidez) 424C: Ἐγὼ μὲν κέχρημαι τοῖς Γαλιλαίοις ἅπασιν οὕτω πράως καὶ φιλανθρώπως. This missive has been dated to late 362/early 363 during Julian’s stay at Antioch. On Julian’s treatment of Christians, see Marcos 2019b and 2020.

220      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

Antioch,259 which began in mid-362 because of crop failures owing to a lack of rainfall and continued into 363,260 and in so doing to censure Antiochene reactions to those measures. Julian mentions his price controls on certain goods sold by shopkeepers in the city as prominent examples of his benevolence.261 But before he could elaborate on his response to the shortage, he first had to build himself up as a responsive and responsible emperor within the text. When the emperor finally focuses on the economic crisis and context of his Misopogon, he not only cites his price controls and Antiochene reactions to them, something he had already noted earlier,262 but he also tells us about his secondary measures in some detail, about his importation of grain from elsewhere in Syria, such as from Chalcis and Hierapolis,263 and from Egypt, likely in the latter case through orders (iussa) to his prefect of Egypt, Ecdicius Olympus.264 Julian draws attention to this situation as much as to any other in the Misopogon, if not more so.265 Perhaps Antiochenes’ improper responses to Julian’s incomplete price-control measures—hoarding and then selling grain outside Antioch and so beyond the limit of his prices edict—were the “last straw” for the emperor,266 the conclusion of a disappointing seven-month stay in the city that prompted him to conceive and to produce his multivalent oration. Some commentators have seen Julian’s mildness in the publication of his Misopogon as problematic, because his stated refusal to return to Antioch would have dealt a serious blow to the city’s social and economic well-being, and thus the emperor’s oration and his declarations within it were a rather serious penalty inflicted on Antioch.267 But how serious was this blow? Most emperors did not 259.  Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 172 see this as a secondary concern. 260.  Jul. Misop. 369A; Lib. Or. 15, 21; Or. 18, 195; Amm. 22.13.4. See also Matthews 2007: 409–10; and n. 266 below. 261.  Misop. 350A. 262.  Misop. 368C–370C; cf. 357D. On this economic crisis, see A. H. M. Jones 1998: 259–69; Downey 1951; and Matthews 2007: 408–13. 263.  Misop. 369A–B. Note that Hierapolis was the emperor’s forward operating base for his Persian campaign (Amm. 23.2.6), and so the grain imported from this city was likely meant for this campaign. 264.  See PLRE 1.647–48, Ecdicius Olympus 3, whose tenure ran from at least summer 362 to late 363. As praefectus praetorio praesens with Julian at Antioch, Salutius likely handled the transfer of grain from within Syria; see Wiemer 1995: 336–41. 265.  Misop. 368C–370C. 266.  See Jul. Misop. 369C–370A; Lib. Or. 15, 23; Or. 16, 24; Or. 18, 195. Cf. CTh 6.24.1; Downey 1961: 386, for Julian’s rationing of provisions (annonaria) drawn by court officials (domestici), a measure that should have been applied citywide (see de Jonge 1948: 242–43). Julian and Maximus, his urban prefect of Rome, had apparently resolved a food shortage there by rationing grain in late 361 (see chapter 4). The subsequent rationing instituted at Antioch by the comes Orientis Icarius in 384/5 was apparently his own initiative and a natural consequence of Antiochene behavior in 362/3 (see Liebeschuetz 1972: 131). See also Wiemer 1995: 308–48; and appendix D, n. 21. 267.  See Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 177–78, 180.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    221

visit most of their cities, and such imperial visits could prove costly as well as beneficial, when the expenses and the dangers associated with the billeting of soldiers are taken into consideration.268 So it would be better to see Julian refusing the social and economic boons and costs that his presence could provide. That said, there was undoubted value in imperial residencies and visits to a city, the inhabitants of which could petition their resident emperor directly and receive a reply relatively quickly, as opposed to their sending an embassy to deliver a petition to him in a distant urban center and then awaiting his decision, which could take many months or longer.269 This was the practical benefit and the privilege that Julian was threatening to deprive Antioch of. Cities also vied with one another over honors from emperors,270 and the people of Antioch were likely genuinely aggrieved at the prospect of their city’s reduction in honor and status as metropolis of Syria, as the “beautiful capital of the East,” when Julian rebuked it with a fierce oration and when he declared his intention to make Tarsus, the metropolis of Cilicia, his new Eastern residence for winter 363/4.271 However, as harsh as the dishonor that Antioch suffered was, it was nothing compared to what Cappadocian Caesarea had suffered, that is, it was not disenrolled from the catalogue of cities, nor were some of its citizens, Christian clerics, we are told, conscripted into the lesser bureaucratic staff of the provincial governor, among other penalties.272 In short, compared to what Julian could have done and certainly did do elsewhere, his Misopogon stands as a rather mild punishment. That clemency is a topos (common theme) of panegyric is less illuminating than the fact that Julian employed actual clemency to an extent,273 that is, that he offered the city milder and reversible punishment.274 And the very existence of Libanius’s 268.  See Lib. Or. 11, 24, 178; Downey 1951: 313–14; and Marcone 1981: 142–43, for Constantius’s economic pressures and reliance on Antioch in preparing for campaigns against Persia. This also had been the case with Julian’s army, which was largely encamped outside Antioch in preparation for his invasion of Persia. Further, given that Galerius and Constantius each stayed at Antioch for extended periods in the context of campaigning against the Persians, food shortages of varying intensity may have occurred during their residencies. The itinerant Hadrian had placed heavy demands on many cities’ resources during his extended stays in them as well (e.g., Birley 1997: 97). On the impact of imperial journeys, see Millar 1992: 33–35. On the relationship between Antioch and the Roman army, see Wintjes 2018. 269.  See Millar 1992: 36–39, 475–77. 270.  E.g., n. 192 above; and the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople in Themistius’s Oration 3. See also Lenski 2016, for cities that competed under Constantine. 271.  See n. 182 above. 272.  Soz. 5.4.1–4; cf. Lib. Or. 16, 14; Van Dam 1996: 30–32; Marcos 2019b: 438. 273.  Cf. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 177. 274.  Cf. appendix D, for Valens’s violence at Antioch; and Soc. 4.38.5; Soz. 6.39.2–4, where Valens, upon his departure from Constantinople in 378, is said to have threatened both people and city with destruction if he returned from Hadrianople; Lenski 2002: 114.

222      Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement

Orations 15 and 16 indicates that Julian’s punishments could indeed be reversed. After all, Antioch had been dishonored by Septimius Severus, only to be rehabilitated later by the same emperor.275 If the populace of Antioch had realized that Julian’s death precluded any chance for their city’s rehabilitation, then they would not have rejoiced at it.276 To be sure, Julian was not the only emperor who was a target of Antiochene ridicule, but he was the only emperor, as far as we know, to respond to such ridicule in the manner that he did. The uniqueness of his response, however, is still somewhat baffling. It is tempting to agree with the view that “perhaps Julian wrote [the Misopogon] more for his own satisfaction than for its political effect.” In short, the emperor “needed to justify himself to himself.”277 This may well be true to an extent. But Julian apparently had his oration posted outside the imperial palace at Antioch, and so “delivered” his oration, which shows that its contents and messages were not meant for him alone. He applied the genre of praise-giving in innovative fashion at Antioch in a bid to defend his reputation as a responsive and responsible administrator, and to upbraid and punish the city by means of an oration instead of employing physical violence. The Antiochikos/Misopogon is both a self-panegyric of the emperor and an anti-panegyric on Antioch, an oration meant to promote Julian, to punish the city’s inhabitants, and to advise them on their future behavior while he was away campaigning in Persia. C O N C LU SIO N

In his epistle-edicts to Alexandria, Bostra, and Edessa, Julian rebuked these Eastern cities and made his wishes known to their inhabitants, while prescribing certain measures for how they could better comply with his wishes, and so enjoy a better relationship with him. Thus Julian conceived of such epistles, in part, as both punitive and advisory in nature, as methods for nudging the behavior of his subjects in the direction he preferred. This conception of letters was not new, as the missives of previous emperors such as Constantine make clear (e.g., his letter to the provincials of Palestine). What was new, however, was the extent to which Julian embedded his epistles with panegyrical material in order to advertise himself as a responsive, responsible, and legitimate emperor. After Julian arrived in Antioch in late July 362, Libanius honored the emperor with a panegyric (Or. 13) in which he focused on publicizing Julian’s legitimacy and moral qualifications before noting imperial restoration of blood sacrifice. Such restoration is connected with new military policy on the Eastern frontier as 275.  SHA Sept. Seu. 9.4–8, 14.6; Carac. 1.7; cf. Cass. Dio 74.14. See also n. 192 above. 276.  Cf. Van Hoof and Van Nuffelen 2011: 183. 277.  Browning 1978: 158.

Panegyric, Promotion, Punishment, and Advisement    223

well, specifically with Julian’s pending punitive invasion of Persia. In his second panegyric delivered before Julian on 1 January 363 (Or. 12), Libanius further developed this connection between acts of piety at home and military success abroad while also affirming the emperor’s legitimacy and virtues more forcefully, which suggests that Julian’s validity as emperor had been of some concern to the Antiochenes. While Libanius did not hold public office, both of his orations to Julian still reflect the emperor’s wishes. All this is suggestive of the emperor’s careful and gradual curation and promotion of new religious policy, which had substantial popular support, and further supports viewing panegyric as part of Julian’s communicative strategies for advancing his agenda. The Antiochikos/Misopogon, though more lengthy and complex than the orations and epistles above, was intended to advance the public image of Julian’s responsiveness and effectiveness in the imperial office and his legitimacy, to strengthen his political position; and it does so by deftly (re)purposing panegyric. In so doing, it also prescribes measures for the inhabitants of the Syrian metropolis and directs them to adopt his proposals and others in keeping with them willingly if they desire to maintain (or to effect) a good relationship with him. This interpretation is not incompatible with seeing the Misopogon as a by-product of a “failure of ritualized communication.” Julian had interacted with the populace of Antioch in the city’s hippodrome less than was expected of him. He had also spoken of the Antiochenes’ excessive love for the theater and horse races over visiting temples and honoring the gods in and with solemn silence, among other things. To fashion an extreme kind of rhetorical “reset button” as he prepared to leave the city, as I have suggested, the emperor put panegyric and polemic to good use, to promote, to punish, and to advise. But when Julian left Antioch on 5 March 363, he left his deeds uncompleted, his relationship with this Eastern metropolis unresolved. With his subsequent death in battle on 26 June, which saw his once promising Persian campaign end in disaster, Julian failed in his aims. He had failed to create a new civic consensus, while the people of Antioch had failed to cooperate with him more conspicuously to this end.

Conclusion Emperors, Rhetoricians, and the Usefulness of Praise

Panegyric has illustrated the arc of Julian’s public career and provided windows into his public personality. It has also allowed us to observe his development as an emperor. To understand Julian as an emperor and imperial panegyric as a genre better, we have assessed him as a politician and read panegyric as intended to advance particular political purposes in specific contexts. As modern scholars have argued, panegyrics before and on the emperor were modes of communication that were just as meaningful as petitions to him, a view this study supports. How did Julian, Themistius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius conceive of praise discourse in relation to the exercise of Roman imperial power? And in what ways and to what ends did they apply this genre during their public careers (or postmilitary career, as in the case of Ammianus)? We have now seen how Julian, as both Caesar and Augustus, utilized several literary mediums to promote his public position, preferences, and policies: panegyrics of various types, epistles, and even an oration like the Antiochikos/Misopogon, which defies simple classification. Panegyric is a common thread and component in all these political communications, indicating that the emperor was well aware of the flexibility and usefulness of this genre to promote himself and his interests, and apparently more so than his predecessors. Who emperors were, what they did, how they presented themselves, was complex, as were their relationships with rhetoricians. As M. I. Finley observed in a classic essay, generalizations in ancient history are problematic, pervasive, and unavoidable.1 The fourth-century Roman Empire 1.  Finley 1987: 60–74. See also the introduction, n. 61.

225

226      Conclusion

appears to have been a particularly active time in the production of panegyric, and many more imperial speeches of praise have been lost than have survived. For all its rules and conventions, panegyric was a versatile literary genre and practice that could be used in different ways and for different ends. As we have seen, the utility of praise discourse lay in its construction or advancement of an emperor’s public image and promotion of his interests through praise offered selectively and prudently. No two panegyrics are exactly the same, and so careful scrutiny of speeches of praise can shed light on an emperor’s desired image of himself at a particular moment. Panegyrics were also valued for the political opportunities they presented for emperors to display their responsiveness to their subjects and to address the latter’s concerns on significant public occasions, including imperial promotions of worthy individuals and imperial visits to cities. Achieving a balance among the various factors comprising an emperor’s stable rule, and his need to establish (and maintain) respectability and to gain acceptance and loyalty throughout the empire among the army, the upper classes, and the populace at large, was a delicate matter.2 In fact, an emperor’s personal security and his success in office depended on his skillful balancing of these factors and concerns. Imperial panegyric was one of the vital mediums and methods that emperors frequently used to disseminate their image and agenda and to maintain their position as a ruler. Speeches of praise before emperors were often delivered in important public spaces, such as palaces, senate houses, and civic assemblies. We cannot and should not conclude that the contents of these speeches were completely confined to such stately venues. The messages broadcasted to members of high society by means of panegyric and the reception of the panegyrics themselves would have spread in some fashion to the wider public; the orator who delivered a successful speech and his elite allies in attendance would have had reasons to circulate what an emperor found to be well said about him and his government. Rhetoricians and panegyrists were also often members of the local and regional elite, and their task was to convince their audiences of the worthiness and promise of their emperors. As has been noted, “Cities, and especially the local elites who ran them, were therefore the critical intermediaries between the imperial state and the mass of its subjects.”3 Of course, popular concerns varied from city to city, from one period to the next, and the degree to which the public was loyal to the emperor, whether as an individual or an office, is rather elusive in many respects. Indeed, as P. A. Brunt observed, “We can never know how deeply that loyalty penetrated the masses. They do not speak to us on parchment or stone.”4 Be that as it may, local aristocrats and notables of various stripes were crucial conduits, facilitators, and even shapers of imperial 2.  E.g., MacMullen 1967; Yavetz 1969; Campbell 1984, esp. 424; and Ando 2000. 3.  Noreña 2009: 538. 4.  Brunt 1990: 277.

Conclusion    227

ideology and propaganda and so responsible, to a great extent, for the reception of imperial messages among provincials and their sense of loyalty to the emperor.5 As I have argued in this book, the focus on or omission of several remarkable details in panegyrics on emperors, such as Mamertinus’s studied silence on religion at Constantinople and Libanius’s sustained interest in Julian’s legitimacy and his military policy on Persia at Antioch, can be partly explained as reflecting the overall concerns of a civic populace. If Roman imperial subjects did indeed conceive of their world as a communis patria,6 then certain rules of conduct and expectations also applied to the emperor, who was charged with maintaining equilibrium and harmony among his subjects. In short, it appears that the periphery influenced the center as much as the other way around—hence an emperor’s awareness of and interest in using praise discourse as a mode of political communication with his subjects, and alongside his epistles and edicts, which could themselves take on the appearance of auto-panegyrics. Shortly after Constantius promoted him to the rank of Caesar on 6 November 355, Julian responded with a speech of praise on his cousin in Oration 1. Themistius had similarly thanked Constantius for his adlection to the Senate of Constantinople with Oration 2 around the same time. Since these Greek speeches were produced for the same emperor, contemporaneously, and for similar reasons, Julian’s and Themistius’s panegyrics provide vital testimony on how these panegyrists conceived of Constantius’s public image and position as emperor in ways that would have been acceptable to him. As the Demegoria Constantii from 1 September 355 makes clear, the emperor’s paideia—real or perceived, and so central to his relationship with his elite subjects—was of some concern to him, a concern reflected in Julian’s and Themistius’s speeches. In fact, it is in this light that Julian’s and Themistius’s first orations to Constantius should be read, for paideia is variously publicized and utilized in them: with Themistius focusing on philosophical virtues and topics and how Constantius as king/emperor stood in relation to them, and Julian consistently emphasizing his cousin’s education and eloquence, well beyond Menander Rhetor’s rules. By producing these speeches of praise, Julian and Themistius showed themselves at once as active participants in Roman government and promoters of their own public images as rhetoricians and political actors. In Themistius’s case, scholars have not seriously doubted that his praise for Constantius was sincere, while Julian’s insincerity has been considered all but evident. Yet, however he felt about his cousin at the time he fashioned his Oration 1, Julian clearly conceived of it as a useful speech, one 5.  On imperial ideology and provincial loyalty, see Ando 2000. Ando neglected to consider the role of elites, who would have been potent actors in the dissemination and reception of imperial messages by the wider public. See also Hopkins 1978b: 197–242; Rees 2002; Noreña 2011a; Hekster 2015; and Marcos 2019a. 6.  As Ando 2000 contends.

228      Conclusion

he appears to have written voluntarily—a point that should shift lines of scholarly inquiry away from consideration of Julian’s sincerity and toward his perception of what purpose panegyric could achieve, both for Constantius and himself. Indeed, Julian’s First Panegyric on Constantius was both a declaration of loyalty to a cultured Augustus and an advertisement of a learned panegyrist-Caesar at work. While Constantius would have had reason to be pleased with Julian’s debut panegyric, which was probably circulated widely, the Caesar’s speech was certainly sent to Libanius in the East, where Julian did not rule and where his public image as Caesar depended on Constantius’s conception and expression of Julian’s authority and power. By circulating a Greek panegyric in the East, Julian can be seen taking the first steps in managing his own public profile, and controlling his own narrative under the guise and protection of an oration to Constantius and in his new rank as Caesar. Constantius’s actions in the imperial office are praised, his image as a learned emperor conveyed and enhanced to a degree; but a panegyrist’s praise of an emperor, if well executed, could elevate the fame and reputation of the rhetorician along with his subject. In extolling the virtues of Constantius, Julian drew attention to his own virtues: his paideia and ability to produce learned panegyric; his loyalty to and support for the emperor; his political acumen in seeing the benefits of producing praise for his Augustan superior; and perhaps even a hint that he as Caesar would produce notable exploits of his own that would be worthy of praise. We have also seen sections of Julian’s oration that might not have pleased Constantius, illustrating that praise discourse could be deployed to (de)construct an emperor’s image. As a powerful but only semi-independent deity in a literary universe, a panegyrist could neatly giveth and taketh away. Above all, Themistius’s first two orations and Julian’s own first panegyric indicate that these rhetoricians were focused, to various degrees, on constructing Constantius’s image as a learned man, a literary persona that Constantius himself cultivated in his Demegoria Constantii. In particular, Themistius constructed and enhanced the emperor’s image explicitly by calling him a philosopher on the throne and focusing on philosophical figures and themes (especially in Oration 2 and including the emperor’s use of oratory to depose Vetranio at Naissus on 25 December 350) that frame his first two orations as philosophical panegyrics, panegyrics that, by implication, the emperor must have appreciated as a philosopher. Julian, on the other hand, took a different approach, with more implicit references. Notably, he does not describe Constantius as a philosopher, but he does link the emperor to key philosophical and monarchical virtues, such as philanthropia, praotes, and megalopsuchia, in addition to portraying him as possessing the kind of eloquence that had deposed the “usurper” Vetranio. And as a counterpoint to Themistius’s conception of Constantius as “embodied law,”7 Julian remarkably calls 7.  Them. Or. 1, 15B.

Conclusion    229

Constantius a fellow citizen (polites) who as emperor is bound by and to the laws.8 It is attractive to see Julian describing Constantius as polites with Themistius’s opposing view of the emperor in mind. However, it is quite possible that the Caesar’s view of his Augustus also represents a view of the emperor that was held by a wider audience. If so, this sheds some light on what I have seen as implicit criticism of Constantius. Julian accomplishes this by attenuating his praise in particular instances and leaving it up to his audiences to read these instances for themselves in a way that can be decidedly negative, as when, for example, he states that Constantius had kept Constantinople free from civil discord. Audiences, particularly an Eastern audience, would have known this not to be true with respect to events in that city in summer 337, when Constantius’s soldiers murdered members of the imperial family and their supporters. As I have argued, by alluding to this dark chapter in their family’s history and engaging in a form of doublespeak, Julian can be seen subtly charging Constantius with having failed in one of his prime duties as an emperor and as a citizen, that is, keeping his subjects and fellow citizens safe from harm. And yet Julian was careful not to go too far with allusions and doublespeak. As a newly minted Caesar, he still needed Constantius’s goodwill and political support, and, to that end, he produced a diplomatic text in his second oration, the Panegyric on Eusebia ca. 356/7. An earnest desire to retain Constantius’s political support helps to explain why Julian chose to produce a speech of praise on the empress, who, as Julian himself tells us, had been one of his benefactors. Julian’s panegyric on Eusebia is our earliest extant imperial speech on a living woman. Although it might seem unlikely that Julian was the first member of the imperial family to write such a speech, he does not allude to any earlier Roman women or earlier models for his work. More importantly, the text of the panegyrist-Caesar’s second speech indicates that he was concerned with maintaining good relations with Eusebia as one of his most powerful patrons. Perhaps she served as a critical channel of communication with Constantius and wielded some influence with him, communication and influence that Julian sought to retain in pursuit of his own exercise of power in Gaul. Julian’s task was to finesse his key relationships. In early 357, Themistius crafted an official diplomatic text: an ambassadorial speech to Constantius that he delivered before the emperor in Rome, sometime after Constantius’s triumphal entry into the city that Ammianus describes so vividly. The emperor had defeated Magnentius over three years before, but he had not chosen to enter the Eternal City until April 357. At this time, Themistius arrived in Rome as an official envoy from Constantinople, and so his panegyric was delivered in an official capacity as a recently adlected senator. That Themistius had been chosen for this embassy after less than two years as a senator shows that he had attained a high level 8.  Jul. Or. 1, 45C–D.

230      Conclusion

of importance in a short time. The rhetorician-senator champions Constantinople in his speech, connecting its success as an urban center with Constantius’s civic management. Because Constantius had just entered Rome for the first time, Themistius’s remarks on Rome’s Eastern counterpart were undoubtedly intended to provide a preview of what Constantius could do for Rome, which Constantinople had aided in war against Magnentius. In this context, Themistius’s Oration 3 is less concerned with presenting the emperor as learned man and philosopher than as euergetes or benefactor. This was a common theme in imperial panegyric; here Themistius appears to direct this message to the Western elite, particularly to the Senate of Rome, with whom Constantius would have discussed and coordinated his Western policies. In this case, the panegyrist travels as an ambassador from Constantinople not only to see the emperor in Rome and pay him honor and coin, but also to help to strengthen the emperor’s position in Rome, Italy, and the West. As a result, Themistius’s speech seems to reflect Constantius’s interest in building consensus with the Roman Senate. Moreover, like Julian, Themistius was not above using praise discourse as a means of self-promotion. In his Oration 3, Themistius took the opportunity to defend himself and his speech as emanating from an independent witness of Constantius’s virtues—he was a philosopher, senator, and panegyrist who merely relayed the truth about the emperor. Panegyric was a flexible genre that allowed the orator to self-advertise in the course of praising another. As in his Oration 1, Julian deployed virtues such as andreia, praotes, and megalopsuchia in his panegyric on Eusebia, in which he also discusses Constantius,9 who, I argue, was also an audience of this speech. The Julian evident here is the Julian who acted in calculated ways to preserve his good standing, while also maintaining the positive image of himself as a faithful apparitor or subordinate from Oration 1. In light of Gallus’s execution in late 354, ostensibly due, in part, to his attempt to seize greater power as an Augustus, we should not underestimate the value of the contrast that Julian, consciously or otherwise, was subtly drawing to his brother and Constantius’s previous Caesar. While he lauds the empress and the emperor as his benefactors, Julian also manages to publicize himself within his speech through examples of his positive and correct conduct toward the imperial couple. In fact, the panegyrist-Caesar’s penchant for self-promotion would only increase over the course of a long period of literary activity, including his lost commentary on the battle of Argentoratum (Strasbourg), his third oration or Second Panegyric on Constantius, which in critical places doubles as a reflective treatise on (good) kingship, and his subsequent epistles to Greek cities such as Athens and Corinth during civil war with Constantius. In my view, Julian’s battle commentary, Second Panegyric on Constantius, and open letter to the Athenians are closely related: all three can be read as instances of self-glorification geared toward 9.  Jul. Or. 2, 114B.

Conclusion    231

conveying his legitimacy and building consensus around it, all part of a gradual development of his self-presentation in Oration 2. When Julian produced his second oration on Constantius (Or. 3) ca. 358/9, his relationship with his cousin showed some signs of strain, as Julian implies in the guise of Achilles to Constantius’s Agamemnon. This multifaceted panegyric demonstrates Julian’s originality in reconfiguring a literary genre that seemingly had served him well in sustaining positive relations with his Augustus; the Caesar blended praise with a kind of political pamphleteering, as is evident in what scholars have described as a “manifesto” on the good king. That Julian wrote a second panegyric on Constantius is indicative of his continued pragmatism, for the emperor is commended, but, as we have seen, there is more to this speech than meets the eye. If Julian circulated his third oration as he did his first, then the section of the speech dealing with proper rule would have served to advertise Julian’s views on what (good) government chiefly consisted of: leading the army, dispensing justice, and worshipping the gods. This was typically expected of the exemplary king, but Julian adds further details that illustrate greater thought and earnestness on his part in carrying out the duties above and that invite a contrast to Constantius’s actions with respect to those duties. To be sure, the panegyrist-Caesar offered his Augustan superior praise and a renewed declaration of loyalty, a prudent step after provocatively producing a commentary on his victory at Argentoratum, but he also implicitly advanced his self-presentation as a learned Caesar and not so subtly suggested his interest in Augustan rank with his “manifesto.” This same earnestness and attention to proper rule and to his literary persona are manifest in his Epistle to the Athenians, in which, as we have seen, Julian made deft use of several literary genres—epistolary, apologia, autobiography, panegyric, and polemic—in the pursuit of legitimization. In relying on panegyric, Julian skillfully combined both praise and censure: self-praise and promotion of his exercise of imperial power, and censure of Constantius’s exercise of the same, censure that inverts the conventions of praise discourse to form an “anti-panegyric,” not unlike Hilary of Poitiers’s In Constantium from 360. Following his pronouncement at Paris in early 360, Julian set to deconstructing Constantius while validating his own position as an Augustus, an approach that can be traced back to his (veiled) criticisms of his cousin in his Oration 1. In his communication to the Athenians, Julian undercut Constantius’s character and moral worth by blaming him for the wholesale murders of members of the imperial family in summer 337, by casting him as a poor general, and by charging him with unjustly dealing with Gallus in 354, thus undermining the very basis of Constantius’s claim to Augustan authority. In so doing, Julian conversely enhanced his own claim to this authority and his public standing to challenge Constantius. That Julian managed to employ panegyric to some effect in his Epistle to the Athenians in Illyricum during civil war was not lost on Ammianus, who would

232      Conclusion

make use of what he saw as “panegyrical material” (laudatiua materia) when relating Julian’s movements and activities, first as Caesar and then as an Augustus. In fact, the influence of praise discourse is evident in specific, key sections of Ammianus’s historical narrative in books 20 and 21, which describe imperial transition. When Ammianus set to narrating Julian’s pronouncement at Paris, he carefully unspooled events in such a way as to show Julian acting properly in every instance, including but not limited to his displays of recusatio imperii, a portrayal that can and should be read as an implicit and skilled panegyric. The presence and potency of such panegyric in Ammianus’s historiographical approach continued in a series of minor speeches by Julian to his assembled army on the eve of their advance into Illyricum against Constantius, speeches that again display Julian’s recusatio imperii and so frame his new Augustan authority and power as foisted on him and legitimate. In every instance, Ammianus seems concerned with conveying and enhancing Julian’s legitimacy, which is a vital component in the emperor’s open letter to the Athenians and in imperial panegyric generally, a genre that Julian had adapted to suit his needs when recounting his revolt to the empire’s Balkan and Eastern subjects. In addition to bolstering Julian’s reputation for posterity generally, Ammianus dedicated some space in his text to conveying and enhancing Julian’s legitimacy, I suggest, so as to critique implicitly the opaque circumstances of Theodosius’s elevation to Augustan rank in 379 and his legitimacy. And yet Ammianus’s account also has provided us with a fair approximation or likelihood of what occurred at Paris in early 360 and immediately afterward, including the political messaging of Julian’s adlocutiones or speeches to his soldiers before undertaking civil war. What I have argued for here in highlighting Julian’s and Ammianus’s reliance on the genre of praise-giving, in their ideological/propagandistic epistle and historical narrative, respectively, is that both offer readers and listeners an “official story” of Julian’s promotion to Augustan rank and that both plausibly present a newly elevated Augustus who publicly played the part of a legitimate emperor well. This is especially true of Ammianus, who includes some theatrical scenes that are just as revealing as those of Tacitus, and in so doing consistently draws attention to those who played their part well as emperors and those who did not.10 Such theatricality is consistent with the ceremonial setting of praise-giving.11 While relating the historical “reality” of events at Paris, Ammianus, I argue, considered the truth of imperial “legitimacy” an ideological construct to some extent; if a holder of imperial power publicly acted as a legitimate holder, as Julian is shown to have done, then his positive performance helped to create the reality of his legitimacy, just as his poor performance, as in the case of Julian’s maternal cousin Procopius, could help present the unreality of his legitimacy and undermine his holding of 10.  See Marcos 2015 and R. Flower 2015. 11.  See chapter 3, n. 68.

Conclusion    233

imperium. It is to this end, to maximize the political opportunity that Julian’s usurpation presented, that both Julian and Ammianus applied praise discourse, the value of which Julian as sole emperor continued to appreciate. After entering Constantinople at the head of Western and Eastern troops on 11 December 361, Julian took careful note of what the situation required. He gave Constantius a state funeral and interred him there in accordance with Christian rites. Julian then commissioned Claudius Mamertinus, his praetorian prefect and consul prior for 362, to deliver a Latin panegyric before him in the senate house of Constantinople. Like Julian before him, Mamertinus used “proofs” in persuading his audience of certain imperial conduct and exemplarity. In Mamertinus’s prudently crafted speech, Julian’s Western military exploits were given their due, but not overly so, perhaps out of sensitivity to how the Eastern armies, whose support the emperor needed, would perceive such Western promotion. If so, this in itself is suggestive of a wider circulation of the contents of panegyrics. More emphatically, Julian’s administrative uprightness and effectiveness were put on display: his correction of corrupt governors in Gaul, his successful management of Rome’s food shortage (through his urban prefect), and his interest in promoting men on the basis of merit in place of their canvassing for office, in addition to his general devotion to an unnamed divinity when consolidating his power and authority in the East. The Julian that the rhetorician-consul praised on 1 January 362 was an emperor who continued to be aware of his responsibilities and who was shown delivering on them (as in the case of Rome’s grain supply), one who exhibited aequitas in his exercise of the imperial office. It is in this light that we should also view the panegyrist’s remarkable silence on religious policy, which, I have argued, indicates that Mamertinus as a kind of official spokesman communicated Julian’s interest in building a new consensus with his Eastern and Christian subjects shortly after civil war. The few instances of religious language that Mamertinus does use dovetail well with the religious neutrality that Julian was espousing at this stage, which has a parallel in a Latin panegyric on Constantine from 313.12 That Mamertinus designed his oration to convey cooperation and to reinforce Julian’s position as emperor and his nascent government also has much in common with the speech of an anonymous Latin panegyrist who had praised Constantine in 307,13 when, a year after Constantine’s assumption of imperium, this panegyrist dedicated considerable space in the text to illustrating this emperor’s legitimacy through his deceased father, Constantius I, and his living father-in-law, Maximian. We find a similar concern in another anonymous Latin panegyrist’s work from 310,14 notable for being the first speech famously to link 12.  Pan. Lat. 12(9). 13.  Pan. Lat. 7(6). 14.  Pan. Lat. 6(7).

234      Conclusion

Constantine with Claudius II Gothicus and to introduce Constantine’s solar vision, the latter of which has been fiercely debated. The functions of Mamertinus’s panegyric have been misunderstood; the image of Julian that Mamertinus stresses in his speech is not that of a confrontational emperor but a practical one. There is nothing here of the supposedly puritanical pagan who was overzealous or even zealous in promoting traditional cult. That this is not merely an ideological construct of Mamertinus’s is supported by actions that we know Julian took by January 362, such as his issuance of edicts of religious toleration, edicts that would have placed traditional cult on an equal footing with Christianity, at least for a short period. The consensus-building function of Mamertinus’s oration is also supported by Julian’s coin issues from 362, on which he is depicted publicizing the valor of Western and Eastern armies (united) and state security; there is no reference to religious policy, not overtly and perhaps not at all. But Julian subsequently enacted pro-pagan policy, such as in his directives that temples empire-wide should be (re)built, (re)opened, and respected, that blood sacrifice was not only allowed once more but also highly encouraged, and that government subsidies, previously enjoyed by Christian bishops, clerics, and their churches, be redirected to pagan priests, temples, and oracles.15 The Greek oration of Himerius from early 362, also delivered at Constantinople, is apparently the earliest panegyric that strays from the religious neutrality evident in Mamertinus’s Latin oration. In Himerius’s speech, perhaps for an audience of Mithraic initiates, we find references to Helios and temples being rebuilt, but, interestingly enough, not to blood sacrifice. Moreover, Himerius placed his reference to new temple policy among innocuous and secular building projects, and he did so as a priuatus and not a government official like Mamertinus. In short, Himerius managed to publicize Julian’s temple policy but not above any other policy, and his speech seems to have been targeted more at the educated elite than Mamertinus’s, which suggests an interest in building a new consensus. Mamertinus’s and Himerius’s measured messaging on religion is best considered alongside Julian’s various communications to Eastern cities in early 362, in which there is also no mention of blood sacrifice. More emphatically, the restoration of the cult of the gods, including blood sacrifice, is one of the messages that Libanius would deliver at Antioch in two separate but related panegyrics before the emperor there in late July 362 and on 1 January 363—new policy that Libanius conspicuously frames as connected with Rome’s prospective military success against Persia. In my view, these increasingly pointed references to traditional piety suggest that Julian engaged in a careful and gradual curation and promotion of new religious policy. Unlike Himerius’s but like Mamertinus’s speech, Libanius’s 15.  See Arce 1975; Brendel 2017: 271–76; Marcos 2019a: 538–39; Wiemer 2020: 214–33 (with whom I disagree on Julian’s intent to “remove” Christianity); and Schmidt-Hofner 2020: 155–60.

Conclusion    235

two panegyrics can be seen as kinds of official pronouncements, whose messages Julian approved of and wished to be disseminated many months after Mamertinus. Consequently, panegyric proved useful as part of the emperor’s communicative strategies for advancing his agenda, and not for the last time. After his tenure in Antioch was met with some popular disapproval, Julian once again turned to panegyric to defend his actions and to communicate his future intentions toward this great Eastern city on the eve of his departure for Persia. By ridiculing the emperor in public places such as the agora, the people of Antioch had struck a nerve. Julian retaliated in kind with his Antiochikos/Misopogon, a high-grade rhetorical rebuttal of Antiochene ridicule that sought to reiterate and reify his legitimacy and authority and to promote him as a responsive and effective civic manager, portrayals that are interrelated. Julian’s Misopogon, a marvelous and potent example of his rhetorical prowess, is an atypical imperial pronouncement— it has more in common with Dion of Prusa’s Alexandrian oration (Or. 32) than with previous emperors’ “edicts of chastisement.” In keeping with Himerius’s and Libanius’s speeches, Julian’s oration on and to Antioch also promoted traditional cult, but not to the exclusion of other considerations. Further, internal evidence in this communication speaks as much to a failure of consensus-building, a failure of cooperation between emperor and populace, as to a “failure of ritualized communication,” and perhaps even more so. At the same time that Julian engaged in skillful self-promotion in his Misopogon, he also censured the Antiochenes—a dual approach and structure we also saw in his Epistle to the Athenians—through acidic references to their ancestry and behavior, and declared that he would not return to their city, a declaration that served to punish Antioch by undercutting its prestige as an established imperial residence, and the “beautiful capital of the East,” although not irreversibly. Julian left room for reconciliation; he seemingly intended his oration to serve as an extreme kind of rhetorical “reset button” and an advisory document during his absence that could play a role in that possible reconciliation. But Julian did not return to Antioch, and the city suffered serious dishonor with his oration being his last word to the Antiochenes. All this has a direct bearing on interpretations of Julian’s conduct in the imperial office; indeed, it necessitates that we revise current views of him as a Caesar and an Augustus. The Julian that emerges from the present investigation is an attentive, ambitious, and sensible man, both as a rhetorician and an emperor, one who knew what was expected of him in every role that he played within Roman government and who engaged in building some degree of consensus with those around him in the interest of attaining his goals. His eccentricity and rationality were not mutually exclusive. As for Themistius, his career as a rhetorician-senator, as an apparitor to emperors, continued under Julian’s successors, Jovian, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian, and Theodosius, each of whom he praised. Themistius’s public speeches also demonstrate his continued political activity and belief in panegyric, that it served a

236      Conclusion

vital function in and for Roman government, a view he shared with Julian, Ammianus, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius. As has been noted, “Julian was one of the most inventive communicators ever to wear the purple, comparable with Augustus, Hadrian, and his hated uncle Constantine.”16 Mindful of Keith Hopkins’s criticisms of Fergus Millar’s methods in The Emperor in the Roman World (as well as the methods of other “conventional” ancient historians),17 Julian’s unremitting energy and literary output as emperor should be treated carefully, apart from Millar’s own generalized, paradigmatic view of the emperor (constantly) at work. Indeed, Julian was a rather exceptional emperor, an oddity in many respects, one who stands apart from his immediate predecessors and successors both in his frequent adoption of panegyric in his communications, and in matters of religious identity and practice. Or so it would seem. So few imperial panegyrics and epistles survive that the image we have of Julian’s prominent use of praise discourse may not be unique. Here we might conclude with a fundamental question that we asked at the beginning of this study: What, then, was panegyric? Perhaps more than other emperors, Julian realized the power and flexibility of the written word and enlisted it often in his own interests: when he was Caesar seeking to maintain political support; when he was promoting himself during civil war; and when he was sole emperor striving to build consensus and to reinforce his position, to publicize his new political program, and even to punish and to advise some of his subjects, all the while displaying his responsiveness to those over whom he ruled. What I have offered here are additional ways to conceive of imperial panegyric, additional subtypes of praise-giving. Panegyric could be used to (de)construct, to promote, to finesse, to legitimize, to unite and reinforce, to punish, and to advise, and sometimes it could do all these things at once. We should not be surprised at this potential overlap, since the purposes to which emperors and rhetoricians applied their panegyrics—image management, diplomacy, consensus-building, and civic administration—were interrelated. In the course of carrying out these functions, panegyric was always calibrated to perform a vital role of and for government, a role that reveals that praise discourse was valued for its ability to advance an emperor’s public profile and priorities. In short, panegyric was both political communication and opportunity. Speeches of praise thus afforded emperors and their panegyrists with a means to express and to negotiate their power. But these speeches also gave voice to some of the needs of the wider public, and in so doing allowed society at large another vehicle for communicating some of its grievances. As the orations and epistles of Julian, Themistius, Claudius Mamertinus, Himerius, and Libanius, and Ammianus’s narrative on Julian’s pronouncement at Paris and subsequent 16.  McLynn 2014: 126. 17.  See the introduction, nn. 39, 40, and 41.

Conclusion    237

actions, make plain, panegyric played a critical role in fourth-century social and political life, a more important role than some scholars have supposed. That panegyric remained a part of imperial ceremonial, of a highly choreographed scene, may lead us to question the very validity or usefulness of the political messages it can be seen to transmit. Did not all emperors wish to be successful on the frontiers and to govern citizens and state well? But the power of panegyric was more complex than that. Apart from transmitting the kinds of messages that Roman subjects expected, and in keeping with specula principis, speeches of praise presented emperors not only with images to value but also with images to live up to. And so, I argue, panegyrics often served as implied contracts with the emperor— he was expected to live up to the image of him that rhetoricians offered and praised and that helped to legitimize his holding of power. An emperor seen to be deviating from that image would leave room for a challenger, to both himself and his government. And yet, in pursuit of advancing an agenda, images could be updated and/or targeted at different audiences.

appendi x a

The Date of Themistius’s Oration 1

The dating of Themistius’s First Oration to Constantius has typically oscillated between 347 and late 350, partly based on the incipit prefacing it in its manuscripts, which records that it was delivered before the emperor at Ancyra. This date is correlative to the Theodosian Code, which locates Constantius at Ancyra in those years.1 However, Skinner has most recently scrutinized the contents of this oration and concluded, quite radically, that it can be antedated to early 342, to shortly after a civic disruption at Constantinople that ended in the lynching of Constantius’s magister equitum Hermogenes.2 This event was a serious offense and stain on Constantinople, and a direct challenge to Constantius’s authority. But Constantius’s choices of Themistius and Ancyra seem lackluster and even odd in this context. Why would Themistius, who was only about twenty-five years old in 342 (he was born ca. 317),3 have been chosen to deliver a panegyric to Constantius on the emperor’s response to a momentous public event, indeed his very first oration to an emperor, in place of a seasoned panegyrist?4 This question has not been adequately answered, and it is a 1.  On the dating and context of Oration 1, which have been highly debated, see Seeck 1906: 293– 94, who proposed 350; Gladis 1907: 2–5, who proposed 348; Vanderspoel 1995: 71–77, who argued for 347; Leppin and Portmann 1998: 27–28, for fall 351; Errington 2001, who followed Seeck and supported late 350; Heather and Moncur 2001: 69–73, esp. 69–71, who considered 347 and late 350 as possibilities; and Skinner 2015: 238–40, who most recently has argued for early 342 (and who does not cite Errington 2001). I myself follow Seeck and Errington in dating this speech to late 350. See also chapter 1, n. 82. 2.  Skinner 2015: 241–42. Greenlee 2020: 136–37 has subsequently also argued for 342 but on different grounds. Neither addresses the issues that are a consequence of this new dating (below). 3.  Vanderspoel 1995: 27, 31. 4.  Such as Bemarchius. In 342, Themistius was at about the same stage of his career as Libanius (Skinner 2015: 245). But Libanius, who had been born ca. 314, did not deliver his first panegyric until ca. 348 (Or. 59), when he was in his early thirties. So why Themistius? This question loses relevance if the occasion behind the delivery of his Oration 1 was not particularly momentous.

239

240      Appendix A fundamental one, since we do not know the duration of Themistius’s philosophical training, how old he was when it ended, and when exactly he first began teaching.5 Perhaps Themistius’s palace patron, Flavius Saturninus,6 was decisive in his selection, which a more experienced man would have obtained.7 As Skinner acknowledges, his dating would mean that there was a thirteen-year interval between the delivery of Oration 1 and Constantius’s adlection of Themistius to the Senate of Constantinople in late 355.8 If this oration was significant, then this interval appears harder to understand than a five- to eight-year gap between delivery and adlection; unless Constantius rewarded Themistius in another way. Skinner’s dating would also require us to reevaluate Themistius’s relationship with Saturninus, whether the latter was in an influential enough position in 342, rather than 347 or 350, to act as Themistius’s patron, indeed if he was Themistius’s patron for Oration 1 at all. Additionally, the reference in the rubric of this speech to Themistius “still being a young man” (νέος ὢν ἔτι) at the time he delivered this panegyric is, as Vanderspoel realized, no real guide to dating Oration 1 because a man might be deemed “young” even in his thirties.9 In fact, we should focus on the adjectival construction of “still being” (ὢν ἔτι), a description that can support viewing Themistius as more likely in his thirties than in his twenties, since it implies that he was more seasoned in age;10 and in connection with this, Themistius seemingly lived into his seventies (ca. 388 or 393),11 and so the comment on his youth may be a relative one that considers the orator’s life span and the overall arc of his public career.12 Also problematic is Constantius’s choice of Ancyra instead of Constantinople as the setting for Themistius’s panegyric. If Oration 1 is indeed linked to the immediate aftermath of the riot at Constantinople in winter 341/2, where Constantius’s authority had been challenged by the lynching of one of his chief generals, then it would have been the logical place to deliver a panegyric designed to reify the emperor’s image and authority and to (re)frame his lenient response to such a disruption as due to his love of mankind, and so as something praiseworthy. Perhaps Ancyra was more politically advantageous than Constantinople as a venue for Themistius’s speech at this time. If so, this would have serious consequences for our understanding of Constantius’s exercise of power in Asia Minor during the early 340s. That Themistius did not deliver his panegyric at Constantinople is even more remarkable in light of Skinner’s suggestion that this oration would have served Constantius’s propaganda interests in debates with the Constantinopolitan Senate over the emperor’s course of 5.  See Them. Or. 31, 352C: “For nearly forty years now I have followed all these philosophers, putting my learning to work in your service”; trans. Penella. In my view, Themistius is dating his service to the Eastern senate and city from the time he held the chair in philosophy at Constantinople in 348/9 (cf. Dagron 1968: 7: “Il commence à enseigner peu après, vers 340”; and Penella 2000: 190 n. 2, for “oratorical and philosophical services” prior to his adlection to the Senate of Constantinople in 355). The precise dating of this oration is critical. 6.  PLRE 1.807–8, Flavius Saturninus 10. 7.  Cf. Vanderspoel 1995: 87. 8.  Skinner 2015: 246. 9.  Vanderspoel 1995: 73–74. 10.  Cf. Skinner 2015: 241. 11.  Vanderspoel 1995: 30, 215–16. 12.  Cf. n. 5 above.

Appendix A    241 clemency.13 But how would a speech delivered in Ancyra have helped Constantius in such debates? In this light, Constantius’s choice of a “young man” who had never before delivered an imperial panegyric and who apparently lacked serious prestige and influence with the Constantinopolitan elite becomes even more inexplicable. Moreover, Themistius’s seemingly veiled reference in his speech to recent dynastic upheaval might make better sense if read as delivered in late 350,14 that is, after the murder of Constans on 18 January but before Constantius remarkably deposed Vetranio at Naissus on 25 December, neither of which are mentioned.15 When Themistius tells Constantius and his audience that the good lord (agathos despotes), God, benefits the good emperor by enlarging his domains but that he conversely removes territory from those who are inferior,16 this recalls the situation after the murder of Constans, whose western half of the empire thus was Constantius’s by right, although the latter received only part of Illyricum because Magnentius de facto controlled the West.17 And Constans apparently had not been popular with some members of his court, nor with the broader military and civilian population in the last years of his reign.18 In 340, when Constantinus met his end near Aquileia at the hands of Constans’s troops, it was the latter, not Constantius, who enlarged his territory by acquiring Gaul, Spain, and Britain.19 What Themistius appears to imply about the dynasty’s internal politics is more in line with the aftermath of Constans’s death in January 350. Such problems with 342 as have been discussed here bring us back to late 350, which seems to be the most attractive date for Themistius’s first imperial speech.

13.  Skinner 2015: 241–42. 14.  Them. Or. 1, 9C. Cf. Heather and Moncur 2001: 87 n. 119. Maisano 1995: 132 n. 32 read this same passage as a reference to Rome’s frontier struggle with Sassanid Persia. 15.  See Errington 2001: 163–65, who includes incisive comments on the Third Siege of Nisibis (350). Barnes 1993: 220 registers Constantius at Antioch in summer/fall 350. 16.  Or. 1, 9C. See n. 14 above. 17.  Cf. Heather and Moncur 2001: 70–71, for the possibility of Themistius referring to the deaths of Dalmatius Caesar and Hanniballianus in summer 337. If Themistius refers to the murders of Dalmatius and Hanniballianus and Constans, from whose deaths Constantius benefited, then 350. 18.  Aur. Vict. Caes. 41.23; Eutrop. 10.9.3; Amm. 16.7.5; Zos. 2.42.1–2. See also Woudhuysen 2018, who searches for the Constans that lies beneath Magnentius’s propaganda. 19.  Aur. Vict. 41.22–23; Eutrop. 10.9.2; Jer. Chron. s. a. 340; Ruf. HE 10.16; Oros. 7.29.5; Soc. HE 2.5; Soz. HE 3.2.10.

appendi x b

Julian, an Experienced Soldier before His Promotion to Caesar?

Vanderspoel has suggested that Julian was with Constantius at Arles in 353 and campaigned with him against the Alamanni in 354 “under duress.”1 He has subsequently argued this point at some length,2 but it is problematic. Firstly, Julian’s suggested attendance at Constantius’s tricennalia at Arles in late 353 is plausible. But neither Julian nor any other source tells us where, exactly, he was in 353/4, and he need not have been at Constantius’s court as much as somewhere in northern Italy, just as he would be later when he resided at Comum in 354/5.3 Secondly, Vanderspoel states that “it may make little difference to the basic interpretation, if court and army were together,”4 but we should strive for greater precision: what Julian means by either “army” or “court” (τὸ στρατόπεδον) in his Epistle to Themistius, and how we interpret this term (and others), are of the utmost importance for understanding what Julian is communicating. Julian states that he was “staying with” or “standing by” (παρέμενον) the army or court; but location need not equal activity. And it has not been appreciated fully that the highest risks that Julian says he was running when he was standing by the army or court may refer to military and/or political risks,5 although Julian himself fails to elaborate on what those risks were. Indeed, the key to understanding what Julian means by τὸ στρατόπεδον, which can also be rendered “army camp,”6 is what, exactly, he means by “the highest risks” with respect to it. Here it would be instructive to consider what Julian relates in his Epistle to the Athenians, 1.  Vanderspoel 1995: 86–87, 116, at 86. See also appendix C. 2.  Vanderspoel 2013. 3.  Amm. 15.2.8. 4.  Vanderspoel 2013: 330–31, at 331. 5.  See Jul. Ep. ad Them. 259D–60A: ὅτε περὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων, ὡς ἂν εἴποιεν οἱ πολλοί, κινδυνεύων ἐγὼ τῷ στρατοπέδῳ παρέμενον. Cf. Vanderspoel 2013: 331 n. 14. 6.  LSJ, s.v. στρατόπεδον. E.g., Jul. Or. 1, 24C; Or. 3, 66A.

243

244      Appendix B in which he tells us in nearly identical language about the highest risk that he was placed in when he was besieged at Sens in 356, that he did not have the authority to assemble the army at this time;7 that is, that he had felt himself in a powerless and vulnerable position because he could not call it to his aid. If we are right to focus on this latter passage as of particular intertextual and interpretative value for Julian’s statement in his Epistle to Themistius,8 then it would seem that Julian is actually conveying a general sense of the powerlessness and vulnerability he had felt at Constantius’s court (which is consistent with the overall portrait that literary sources paint of Julian’s position there in 354/5), not that he was actively engaged in military training in 354, as Vanderspoel asserts. Furthermore, while Julian apparently made two visits to Greece,9 his first visit there could have taken place at any time, and it probably occurred earlier than 353/4, since he had spent considerable time in neighboring Asia Minor. In fact, Julian’s references to the timing of his visits to Greece are less than clear, for his account is quite condensed; we do not even know the lengths of his visits. Thus, all we can say for certain is that he made at least two visits to Greece.

7.  Ep. ad Athen. 278A–B: εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον κατέστην κίνδυνον. οὔτε γὰρ ἀθροίζειν ἐξῆν μοι στρατόπεδον. 8.  259D–60A. 9.  Vanderspoel 2013: 328–29.

appendi x c

The Date of Julian’s Oration 1

How to date Julian’s first panegyric on Constantius raises a series of interrelated questions about the motive(s) behind its production: Did Julian himself conceive of writing this oration? If not, at whose urging, and to what end? And did he deliver his panegyric?1 With regard to the latter question, if we are right to date the writing of this panegyric to ca. late 355/early 356, Julian could not himself have delivered his oration before Constantius, since Julian was then campaigning in Gaul as he was again later during Constantius’s visit to the Eternal City in spring 357; moreover, the two men never saw each other in person again after they went their separate ways near Milan on 1 December 355.2 It has been argued that Julian produced his first speech of praise specifically for the occasion of Constantius’s visit to Rome in April 357, when the emperor celebrated his uicennalia as an Augustus since 337.3 Indeed, the city of Rome is mentioned prominently and positively in the text in several places,4 and such emphasis would have been well suited to a public reading there. This dating appears to be partly correct in terms of the occasion for which Julian produced his panegyric, but there is nothing within this speech that firmly dates it to after 355.5 1.  For similarly vital questions, see Tougher 2012: 21–22. 2.  Amm. 15.8.18. Constantius and Julian parted ways outside of Milan on the road to Augusta Taurinorum (Turin); see map 1. It is possible that Julian produced his panegyric on Constantius right after his investiture, when the new Caesar spent about a month in Milan preparing to depart for Gaul (see Browning 1978: 74–76). See also Gladis 1907: 7–8; Bidez 1932: 3; and Pagliara 2015: 90, 94–96. 3.  See Tantillo 1997: 36–40. 4.  See Jul. Or. 1, 6A–C, for his singular remarks about the city of Rome in relation to Constantius; and 29C–D, for further remarks on Rome. 5.  See Jul. Or. 1, 45A–B; Bidez 1932: 3 and 64 n. 1, for Julian’s possible reference to himself as Constantius’s colleague, in which he implies that he had cooperated with him in a campaign, and so possibly in 356. See also n. 6 below.

245

246      Appendix C For example, there is no mention of Constantius having crossed the Rhine in 356, as in Julian’s subsequent orations.6 The latest firmly datable entry within the young Caesar’s speech is a reference to what seems to be Silvanus’s brief usurpation in Gaul in mid-355.7 This reference suggests a more immediate purpose behind Julian’s first panegyric, one as closely connected with his elevation to the Caesarship in late 355 as with Constantius’s projected visit to Rome in early 357.8 In a paper on Julian’s coinage as emperor, López Sánchez has argued that Constantius had seriously considered and planned Julian’s elevation to Caesar at Arelate (Arles) in late 353/early 354, and has suggested that Julian’s first panegyric on Constantius be dated to this period.9 But Constantius already had a Caesar at this time—Gallus; why would he have wanted to elevate another? If Gallus’s growing independence and bloody incursions into civil affairs at Antioch would prompt Constantius to eliminate him,10 then why would Constantius elevate another man to the rank of Caesar when this experiment in shared rule was failing so miserably? It would be better to conclude that Constantius had allowed himself time between late 354, after the execution of Gallus, and late 355, before Julian’s investiture, to consider his options than that he had announced or even contemplated elevating Julian to the rank of Caesar in 353/4. Given what we know, Julian would have wanted to produce a notable expression of his loyalty and gratitude to his cousin for having been offered (or conscripted into) a share of the imperial power early on, ca. 355/6.11 In fact, Julian’s subsequent panegyric on Eusebia is consciously framed as an expression of gratitude to the empress for the part that she played in his promotion (chapter 2). Bidez argued that Julian had sent a copy of his first panegyric on Constantius to Libanius because, in a letter of Libanius to Julian that is still extant and is dated to early 358, Libanius states that the Caesar has excelled him in writing and thanks him for his long letter.12 It has now been shown that Libanius’s opening sentence is actually a quotation of Julian’s first oration, and thus a neat confirmation of his having received a copy of this speech.13 If the dating of Libanius’s letter holds, then he received Julian’s debut oration ca. late 357/early 358, and so the panegyrist-Caesar would have dispatched that oration to him ca. mid-/late 357. A panegyric on an emperor did not need to be delivered before him to be influential. For example, Libanius’s imperial speech on Constantius and Constans (Or. 59) was delivered at Nicomedia ca. 348 but not in the presence of both emperors.14 And yet Libanius’s speech still 6.  Or. 2, 129B–C; Or. 3, 74B. 7.  Or. 1, 48C. On Silvanus, see Kienast 1996: 322. Cf. López Sánchez 2012: 168, who considers an alternative and more obscure usurpation. 8.  How early had this visit been planned and known to Julian? 9.  López Sánchez 2012: 167–68. Cf. appendix B. 10.  For Gallus’s encroachment of the civil sphere and his growing independence as threats to Constantius, see Blockley 1972a: 461–66; and Matthews 2007: 33–35. 11.  Kennedy 1983: 27. 12.  Bidez 1924: 2–3; Lib. Ep. 30.2, 5 Norman (369 Foerster). Norman dated this letter to early 358. 13.  Ross 2020a: 247 n. 25. 14.  On the date and context of Oration 59, see Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 158–64. While they prefer 344 as the date of delivery because of Libanius’s reference to the battle of Singara in that year, I prefer

Appendix C    247 brought him Constantius’s favor, perhaps because it had been requested by and delivered before Constantius’s close adviser and praetorian prefect in the East, Flavius Philippus.15 Given Philippus’s apparent support for Libanius, it may be that the prefect also supported Themistius around the same time. And if the motive behind Julian’s own speech was similar to Libanius’s, that is, to secure and to maintain Constantius’s favor, then the young Caesar will have desired its circulation in the East. It would have been in Julian’s interests to broadcast his loyalty to Constantius and to cultivate support for his own position as much as Constantius would have desired the circulation of his Caesar’s panegyric in the interests of advancing before his Eastern subjects his Augustan image as promoted by a learned Easterner.

post-344, perhaps ca. 348; the delivery of a panegyric need not be anchored to the most recent datable reference in it. It seems that Constantius did not achieve any notable successes against the Persians between 344 and 348, and so Libanius’s reference to the battle of Singara in 344 might simply reflect his making the best out of what he had to work with. Thus, Libanius’s reference to Singara could just as easily be interpreted as his pointing to an earlier (and qualified) success of Constantius in order to overshadow more recent and less fruitful engagements with the Persians post-Singara. 15.  PLRE 1.696–97, Flavius Philippus 7.

appendi x d

Some Emperors’ Residencies at and Responses to Antioch

Julian’s residency at Antioch is the best-documented of any emperor, and interpretations of that residency are skewed by the relative paucity of information on other emperors’ stays there. As Ronald Syme put it, “The people of Antioch were conceited and satirical, eagerly fastening on the habits and behavior of a ruler, not least if he paraded a superior intellect. The ordeal of Julian is the classic document.”1 Of course, the Antiochenes were not alone in exercising parrhesia about emperors citywide, for the urban plebs of several other prominent cities often did so as well.2 But Antioch had a history of serious breaches with emperors, such as with Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. These two cases were primarily the result of being on the wrong side during civil war,3 but the Antiochenes had mocked Severus when he briefly governed Syria under Commodus (for what we do not know), long before his civil war with Pescennius Niger.4 A closer parallel to Julian’s relationship with Antioch is perhaps that of Hadrian, who is said to have hated the city to the point that he intended to separate Syria from Phoenicia—a separation that would be enacted by Septimius Severus—so that Antioch would not be the metropolis of so many cities, though we are not told why Hadrian hated Antioch so.5 What the SHA claims about Hadrian may have some claim to historicity, and if so, Hadrian’s odium for Antioch was perhaps related to traditional public expressions against 1.  Syme 1983: 185. 2.  See n. 8 below. 3.  Cass. Dio 72.28; Hdn. 3.6.9; SHA Marc. Ant. 25.8–12, Auid. Cass. 9.1, Sept. Seu. 9.4–7, Carac. 1.7. 4.  SHA Sept. Seu. 9.4; Birley 1988: 68. 5.  SHA Hadr. 14.1: Antiochenses inter haec ita odio habuit ut Syriam a Phoenice separare uoluerit, ne tot ciuitatum metropolis Antiochia diceretur; cf. Cass. Dio 55.23.2–3; Birley 1988: 114. On Hadrian and Antioch, see Downey 1961: 219–23; and Syme 1983: 180–88, who discusses what the SHA records above and expresses doubts.

249

250      Appendix D emperors there, both as verbal outbursts in places such as the theater and the circus/hippodrome and in writing such as graffiti and leaflets (famosi).6 According to Herodian, who was himself from Antioch, the inhabitants of Syria and especially his fellow Antiochenes were well suited for childish pursuits and frivolousness.7 Moralizing aside, such a description conveys what Herodian perceived to be a habitus of freedom of expression there, of Antioch’s civic parrhesia. Like the people of Rome and Alexandria, the citizens of Antioch had a reputation for taking great license and pleasure in freedom of speech with emperors, of various temperaments, in public places; and emperors typically paid attention.8 Julian himself recognized Antioch’s traditional claim to civic parrhesia.9 In the second century, even the apparently pleasure-loving Lucius Verus had been the object of ridicule during his stays in Antioch and throughout Syria.10 Later, Caracalla is shown having a poor relationship with the city council of Antioch, a relationship he scoffed at and dismissed.11 Subsequently, Severus Alexander received insults from the Antiochenes and Alexandrians, who are said to have called the emperor a “Syrian high priest” and a “chief of synagogues,”12 apparently due, in part, to his inclusion of the biblical Abraham in his religious eclecticism.13 While such relationships between emperors and Antioch during the second and third centuries seemingly did not degenerate into physical conflict, the early fourth century saw Diocletian execute some city councilors (decurions) of Antioch, one of whom was a grandfather of Libanius. Libanius tells us that a segment of the Roman army, which was stationed near Antioch at Seleucia, mutinied and soon afterward came into conflict with some Antiochenes.14 We are not given any details about the emperor’s interactions with Antioch prior to this episode, but Diocletian’s execution of some of the city’s leading men may have been based on more than their inability to control their fellow citizens and maintain civic order.15 Diocletian had spent extended periods of his reign in residence at Antioch, and his recourse to executing some of its notables may have been the result of seeing their apparently poor response to the mutiny of soldiers as a “last straw.”16 As Libanius frames it, his fellow Antiochenes had challenged the mutinous soldiers out of regard for Diocletian’s legitimacy, for the soldiers had a usurper at their head who led them into the city and toward the imperial 6.  Cf. Eunap. Fr. 29.1.16 (Blockley), for the Antiochenes’ issuing of famosi directed at Jovian after they learned of his peace treaty with Shapur II in late 363. See n. 7 below. 7.  Hdn. 2.10.7: ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τὸ χαριέντως καὶ μετὰ παιδιᾶς ἀποσκῶψαι ἐπιτήδειοι Σύροι, καὶ μάλιστα οἱ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν οἰκοῦντες; cf. 2.7.9. See also Soc. 3.17.4. 8.  For the uox populi and its relationship with emperors, see Aja Sánchez 1996. For the urban plebs’ freedom of speech and its relation to an emperor’s honor, see Lendon 1997: 120–29. See also Yavetz 1969. 9.  Jul. Misop. 355B–C. 10.  SHA Luc. Ver. 7.1–4, 10. 11.  Cass. Dio 78.20. 12.  SHA Alex. Seu. 28.7: Syrum archisynagogum eum uocantes, archiereum. 13.  See SHA Alex. Seu. 29.2. 14.  Lib. Or. 11, 158–62; Or. 19, 45–46. 15.  Cf. Liebeschuetz 1972: 103–4. 16.  Cf. Leadbetter 2009: 133. For the dates of Diocletian’s residencies at Antioch, see Barnes 1982: 49, 51, 55.

Appendix D    251 palace.17 Thus, while the rhetorician was not a disinterested party, because of the death of his grandfather at the emperor’s hand, and so may be engaging in some rhetorical flourishes here, it would seem that Diocletian had every reason to be grateful to Antioch’s citizens for eliminating this usurper for him. That he was not grateful supports viewing his decision to punish some city councilors as a rebuke of Libanius’s account or as delayed retribution for some additional, unknown outrage. In any case, this would not be the last time that an emperor punished the city with violence. Indeed, in the mid-fourth century, the seemingly mercurial and cruel Gallus Caesar famously had a turbulent residency at Antioch.18 If the Antiochenes ridiculed Gallus in any way during his nearly three-year residency there (ca. mid-351—mid-354),19 the Caesar made some of them regret it, for he had some city councilors executed,20 though we are told that this was done in connection with his introduction of price control measures, which were a response to a food shortage in early 354.21 According to Ammianus, the city councilors “had responded more weightily than was reasonable” to Gallus.22 And according to Libanius, by writing an oration instead of ordering exiles, confiscations, detentions, and/or executions of prominent Antiochenes,23 the very actions taken by his brother Gallus Caesar, Julian actively communicated and displayed his clemency for all to see, and quite likely as an intended contrast to his brother. But Gallus seems to have enjoyed some popularity with average citizens of Antioch.24 Ammianus’s sheer distaste for Gallus may have led him to portray the Caesar as the instigator of particularly violent upheavals of citizens in the city during the food shortage,25 yet these upheavals had been directed, not against Gallus, whose authority as Caesar belonged primarily to the military sphere, but against the consular governor of Syria Theophilus, the praetorian prefect of the East Domitianus, and the quaestor Montius; that is, against the high administrative officials directly responsible for managing 17.  Or. 11, 161. 18.  Amm. 14.1, 7. On Ammianus’s representation of Gallus, see Thompson 1969: 56–71; Blockley 1972a: 433–45; Tränkle 1976; G. Kelly 2008: 284–93; and Ross 2016b: 62–80. See also Leppin 2011, for Gallus according to Philostorgius. 19.  See Barnes 1993: 226. 20.  Amm. 14.7.2: Antiochensis ordinis uertices sub uno elogio iussit occidi . . . et perissent ad unum, ni comes orientis tunc Honoratus fixa constantia restitisset. One can infer from Ammianus’s remarks here, particularly from his recording of et perissent ad unum, that some city councilors were in fact killed despite Honoratus’s firmly fixed resistance to Gallus’s order. In short, Honoratus’s opposition was consistent but only partly successful. Cf. Lib. Or. 1, 96, who notes that Gallus had killed some at this time; de Jonge 1972 (ad 14.7.2); Jer. s. a. 352: Nonnulli nobilium Antiochiae a Gallo interfecti. 21.  Amm. 14.7.2. Cf. Liebeschuetz 1972: 126–32, for a discussion of the workings of Antioch’s food supply. For similar price control measures in Pisidian Antioch by the legatus Augusti propraetore Lucius Antistius Rusticus under Domitian, see Sherk 1994: 149–50, no. 107. 22.  Amm. 14.7.2: grauius rationabili responderunt. 23.  Lib. Or. 16, 55; Or. 18, 195–98. 24.  See Amm. 14.1.6: laudes uero supprimerent Caesaris (homines quidam ignoti; informants). This remark is made in reference to opinions on Gallus that his agents had ferreted out of well-to-do citizens in Antioch. But Ammianus seems to imply at 14.1.9 that common citizens also praised Gallus when the Caesar himself canvassed them in disguise. 25.  On this food shortage, see Aja Sánchez 1997. See also n. 21 above.

252      Appendix D Antioch and Syria’s foodstuffs and overall economy.26 Moreover, Ammianus does not preface his account of these violent deaths with any remarks that suggest a crisis or even a failure of communication between Gallus and the Antiochenes, though Gallus’s authority and power over the city were limited in favor of Constantius. In fact, alluding to the Antiochenes’ lynching of the governor Theophilus, and perhaps also to the killings of Domitianus and Montius, Julian records that Constantius punished the Antiochenes in some way because of these events,27 which indicates that Constantius did not acknowledge any failure or wrongdoing on his part, though it must be admitted that regardless of whether he, through his top officials, had been guilty of administrative malfeasance or not, the lynching of imperial officials could not be tolerated. Any assessment of Julian’s (poor) relationship with Antioch must take into account the relationships that his predecessors and successors had with the Syrian metropolis. Julian, who, we are told, was as different from his brother Gallus as Titus was from Domitian,28 was not spared from robust taunting when residing at Antioch; in addition to his physical appearance and ascetic habits, the emperor’s handling of a food shortage in the city apparently produced visceral anger and mockery of him. Thus, it would appear that, regardless of an emperor’s tastes and temperament, the Antiochenes tended to enjoy deriding whoever sat on the throne and took up residence in their city. We lack detailed testimony on Diocletian’s, Galerius’s, Maximinus Daza’s, Constantine’s, and Constantius’s stays in Antioch,29 stays that would illuminate Julian’s own time there, but it is doubtful that they wholly evaded ridicule. This dearth of evidence is especially unfortunate in the case of Diocletian, who was a vigorous supporter of traditional cult and who issued his Edict on Maximum Prices in 301, probably at Antioch,30 and so details of his time there would help to shed some light on the events and motives behind Julian’s issuing of a similar edict and on his other activities. As for Julian’s immediate successors, even the apparently inoffensive and amiable Jovian was the target of biting famosi upon his entry into Antioch in late 363, since the Antiochenes blamed him for the new and humiliating peace treaty with Persia that he had agreed to.31 Valens’s residencies at Antioch were also volatile, including treason trials in 372 and other serious disruptions through 378.32 Thus this relationship was marked by physical violence in contrast to what Antioch had experienced under Julian, whose stay in the city the Antiochenes may have come to look back on nostalgically. Later, compared to Theodosius’s reprisals against the city as a consequence of the toppling of his statues there in 387,33 Julian’s Misopogon would again have appeared as a welcome display of clemency. 26.  PLRE 1.262, Domitianus 3; 1.535–36, Montius Magnus 11; and 1.907, Theophilus 1. 27.  Jul. Misop. 370C: δίκην δὲ αὖϑις ἀποτίνων ὑπὲρ τούτων; cf. Lib. Or. 19, 47. 28.  Amm. 14.11.28. 29.  See Euseb. VC 3.59, for some intra-Christian tumult at Antioch over episcopal politics under Constantine; Cameron and Hall 1999: 305. For Constantine’s visit to Antioch, see Barnes 1982: 76. 30.  For Diocletian’s residency at Antioch in 301, see Barnes 1982: 55. On Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, see Corcoran 2000: 205–33. 31.  See n. 6 above. 32.  Amm. 29.1–2, 31.1.2. On some of Valens’s variously disruptive religious activities at Antioch, see Lenski 2002: 218–19, 223–34, 244, and 251–52. On Ammianus, Valens, and Antioch, see G. Kelly 2018. 33.  On Theodosius and Antioch in 387, see Browning 1952 and Quiroga Puertas 2008.

works c i ted

Adams, J. P. 1979. Review of Barbara Levick’s “Tiberius the Politician.” AJP 100: 460–65. Adams Holland, L. 1953. “Septimontium or Saeptimontium?” TAPhA 84: 16–34. Ahl, F. 1984. “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome.” AJP 105: 174–208. Aja Sánchez, J. R. 1996. “Vox populi et princeps: El impacto de la opinión pública sobre el comportamiento político de los emperadores romanos.” Latomus 55: 295–328. . 1997. “La crisis de Antioquía del año 354: Un ejemplo de la pervivencia de la ‘vis publica’ en la antigüedad tardía.” A&Cr 14: 61–81. Alföldy, G. 1989. Die Krise des Römischen Reiches. Stuttgart. Allard, P. 1903–1906. Julien l’Apostat. 3 vols. Paris. Alonso, F. J. 2016. “Parody and Inversion of Literary Genres in Ammianus Marcellinus.” In Á. Sánchez-Ostiz, ed., Beginning and End: From Ammianus Marcellinus to Eusebius of Caesarea, 243–60. Huelva. Alonso-Nuñez, J. M. 1972. “Notas sobre el epistolario y las poesías del Emperador Juliano.” HAnt 2: 55–60. . 1979. “The Emperor Julian’s Misopogon and the Conflict between Christianity and Paganism.” AncSoc 10: 311–24. Alvino, M. C. 2016. “Sul Secondo Panegirico di Giuliano a Costanzo (Or. 3 Bidez).” Koinonia 40: 535–54. Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Angelova, D. 2015. Sacred Founders: Women, Men, and Gods in the Discourse of Imperial Founding: Rome through Early Byzantium. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Angiolani, S. 2008. Giuliano l’apostata: Elogio dell’imperatrice Eusebia (Orazione II); Introduzione, traduzione e note. Naples. Arce, J. J. 1975. “Reconstrucciones de templos paganos en epoca del emperador Juliano (361–363 d.C.).” RSA 5: 201–15. 253

254      Works Cited . 1979. “La educación del emperador Constancio II.” AC 48: 67–81. . 1984. Estudios sobre el emperador Fl. Cl. Juliano: Fuentes literarias, epigrafía, numismática. Madrid. Athanassiadi, P. 1992. Julian: An Intellectual Biography. Reprint. London. Aujoulat, N. 1983a. “Eusébie, Hélène et Julien I: Le témoignage de Julien.” Byzantion 58: 78–103. . 1983b. “Eusébie, Hélène et Julien II: Le témoignage des historiens.” Byzantion 58: 421–52. Baker-Brian, N. 2012. “The Politics of Virtue in Julian’s Misopogon.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 263–80. Swansea. . 2022. The Reign of Constantius II. New York. Baker-Brian, N., and S. Tougher, ed. 2012. Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate. Swansea. Barabino, G. 1965. Claudio Mamertino, Il panegirico dell’imperatore Giuliano. Genoa. Barnes, T. D. 1974. “A Law of Julian.” CP 69: 288–91. . 1975. “Publilius Optatianus Porfyrius.” AJP 96: 173–86. . 1976. “Imperial Campaigns, A.D. 285–311.” Phoenix 30: 174–93. . 1978. The Sources of the “Historia Augusta.” Collection Latomus 155. Brussels. . 1981. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, Mass. . 1982. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, Mass. . 1985. “The Career of Abinnaeus.” Phoenix 39: 368–74. . 1987. “Himerius and the Fourth Century.” CP 82: 206–25. . 1993. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, Mass. . 1995. “Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy.” JRS 85:135–47. . 1998. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality. Ithaca, N.Y. . 2002. “From Toleration to Repression: The Evolution of Constantine’s Religious Policies.” SCI 21: 189–207. . 2014. Constantine: Dynasty, Religion, and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Reprint. Chichester. Barnes, T. D., and J. Vander Spoel. 1984. “Julian on the Sons of Fausta.” Phoenix 38: 175–76. Bartsch, S. 1994. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian. Cambridge, Mass. . 2012. “The Art of Sincerity: Pliny’s Panegyricus.” In R. Rees, ed., Latin Panegyric, 148–93. Oxford. Bassett, S. 2007. The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople. Reprint. Cambridge. Baynes, N. H. 1926. The “Historia Augusta”: Its Date and Purpose. Oxford. Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price, eds. 2013. Religions of Rome. Vol. 1: A History. Reprint. Cambridge. Beckwith, C. L. 2005. “The Condemnation and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers at the Synod of Béziers (356 C.E.).” JECS 13: 21–38. Benoist, S. 2009. “Identité du prince et discours impérial: Le cas de Julien.” AntTard 17: 109–17. Béranger, J. 1948. “Le refus du pouvoir (Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat).” MH 5: 178–96.

Works Cited    255 . 1953. Recherches sur l’aspect idéologique du principat. Basel. . 1970. “L’expression de la divinité dans les Panégyriques Latins.” MH 27: 242–54. . 1972. “Julien l’Apostat et l’hérédité du pouvoir impérial.” In A. Alföldi, E. AlföldiRosenbaum, and G. Alföldy, eds., BHAC 1970: 75–93. Bidez, J. 1914. “L’évolution de la politique de l’empereur Julien en matière religieuse.” BAB 7: 406–61. , ed. 1924. L’empereur Julien, Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 1, pt. 2, Lettres et fragments. Paris. . 1929. La tradition manuscrite et les éditions des discours de l’empereur Julien. Gand. , ed. 1932. L’empereur Julien, Oeuvres complètes. Tome I—1re partie, Discours de Julien César. Paris. . 1965. La vie de l’empereur Julien. Reprint. Paris. Bidez, J., and F. Cumont, eds. 1922. Imp. Caesaris Flavii Claudii Iuliani Epistulae, leges, poemata, fragmenta varia. Paris. Bird, H. W. 1984. Sextus Aurelius Victor: A Historiographical Study. Liverpool. . 1994. Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus. Translated with an introduction and commentary. Liverpool. . 1996. “Julian and Aurelius Victor.” Latomus 55: 870–74. Birley, A. R. 1988. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. Rev. ed. New Haven, Conn. . 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. New York. . 2011. “Making Emperors: Imperial Instrument or Independent Force?” In P. Erdkamp, ed., A Companion to the Roman Army, 379–94. New York. Bischoff, B., and D. Nörr. 1963. Eine unbekannte Konstitution Kaiser Julians. Munich. Bleckmann, B. 1994. “Constantina, Vetranio und Gallus Caesar.” Chiron 24: 29–68. . 2003. “Der Bürgerkrieg zwischen Constantin II. und Constans (340 n. Chr.).” Historia 52: 225–50. . 2020. “From Caesar to Augustus: Julian against Constantius.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, 97–123. Leiden. Bliembach, E. 1976. “Libanius, Oratio 18 (Epitaphios); Kommentar (§§ 111–308).” Diss., University of Würzburg. Blockley, R. C. 1972a. “Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constantius II.” Latomus 31: 433–68. . 1972b. “The Panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus on the Emperor Julian.” AJP 93: 437–50. . 1973. “Tacitean Influence upon Ammianus Marcellinus.” Latomus 32: 63–78. . 1975. Ammianus Marcellinus: A Study of His Historiography and Political Thought. Collection Latomus 141. Brussels. . 1977. “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Battle of Strasburg: Art and Analysis in the History.” Phoenix 31: 218–31. . 1980. “Constantius II and His Generals.” In C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 2: 467–86. Collection Latomus 168. Brussels. , ed. 1981, 1983. The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, and Malchus. 2 vols. Liverpool. . 1988. “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Persian Invasion of A.D. 359.” Phoenix 42: 244–60. . 1989. “Constantius II and Persia.” In C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 5: 465–90. Collection Latomus 206. Brussels.

256      Works Cited . 1992. East Roman Foreign Policy: Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to Anastasius. Liverpool. . 2001. “Ammianus and Cicero on Truth in Historiography.” AHB 15: 14–24. . 2012. “The Panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus on the Emperor Julian.” In R. Rees, ed., Latin Panegyric, 349–59. Oxford. Boatwright, M. T. 2003. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Reprint. Princeton, N.J. Börm, H. 2015. “Born to Be Emperor: The Principle of Succession and the Roman Monarchy.” In J. Wienand, ed., Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, 239–64. Oxford. Bouffartigue, J. 2002. “L’image politique de Julien chez Libanios.” Pallas 60: 175–89. . 2005. “L’authenticité de la Lettre 84 de l’empereur Julien.” RPh 79: 231–42. Bowder, D. 1978. The Age of Constantine and Julian. London. Bowersock, G. W. 1978. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, Mass. Bradbury, S. 1995. “Julian’s Pagan Revival and the Decline of Blood Sacrifice.” Phoenix 49: 331–56. . 2000. “A Sophistic Prefect: Anatolius of Berytus in the Letters of Libanius.” CP 95: 172–86. . 2004. Selected Letters of Libanius, from the Age of Constantius and Julian. Liverpool. Brauch, T. 1993. “The Prefect of Constantinople for 362 AD: Themistius.” Byzantion 63: 37–78. Braund, S. M. 1998. “Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric: Cicero, Seneca, Pliny.” In M. Whitby, ed., The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 53–76. Leiden. , ed. 2011. Seneca, De Clementia. Text, translation, and commentary. Reprint. Cambridge. Brendel, R. 2017. Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichsverwaltung. Hamburg. Bringmann, K. 2008. “Julian, Kaiser und Philosoph.” In C. Schäfer, ed., Kaiser Julian “Apostata” und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum, 87–104. Millennium Studies 21. Berlin. Brown, P. 1992. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison, Wis. Browning, R. 1952. “The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch: The Role of the Theatrical Claques in the Later Empire.” JRS 42: 13–20. . 1978. The Emperor Julian. Reprint. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Brunt, P. A. 1988. The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford. . 1990. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford. Burgess, R. W. 1988. “Quinquennial Vota and the Imperial Consulship in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, 337–511.” NC 148: 77–96. . 2008. “The Summer of Blood: The ‘Great Massacre’ of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine.” DOP 62: 5–51. Callu, J. P. 1987. “Un ‘Miroir des Princes’: Le ‘Basilikos’ libanien de 348.” Gerión 5: 133–52. Caltabiano, M. 1974. “La propaganda di Giuliano nella ‘Lettera agli Ateniesi.’ ” In M. Sordi, ed., Propaganda e persuasione occulta nell’antichità, 123–38. Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica, vol. 2. Milan.

Works Cited    257 . 1979. “Il comportamento di Giuliano in Gallia verso i suoi funzionari.” Acme 32: 417–42. . 1998. “Giuliano imperatore nelle Res Gestae di Ammiano Marcellino: Tra panegirico e storia.” In A. Filippo, R. Guido, R. Sardiello, and V. Ugenti, eds., Giuliano Imperatore: Le sue idee, i suoi amici, i suoi avversari, 335–55. Ricerche sul mondo classico 10. Lecce. . 2009. “La comunità degli elleni: Cultura e potere alla corte dell’imperatore Giuliano.” AntTard 17: 137–49. Cameron, A. 1970. Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius. Oxford. . 2011. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford. Cameron, A. M. 1976. In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris. London. Cameron, A. M., and S. G. Hall. 1999. Eusebius: Life of Constantine. Introduction, translation, and commentary. Oxford. Campbell, J. B. 1984. The Emperor and the Roman Army, 31 BC—AD 235. Oxford. Carrié, J.-M. 2009. “Julien législateur: Un mélange des genres?” AntTard 17: 175–84. Charlesworth, M. P. 1937. The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief. PBA 23. Oxford. . 1943. “Pietas and Victoria: The Emperor and the Citizen.” JRS 33: 1–10. Chenault, R. R. 2020. “Roman and Gallic in the Latin Panegyrics of Symmachus and Ausonius.” In A. Omissi and A. J. Ross, eds., Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, 189–208. Liverpool. Colonna, A. 1951. Himerii Declamationes et orationes cum deperditarum fragmentis. Rome. Conti, S. 2004. Die Inschriften Kaiser Julians. Stuttgart. Cooley, A., ed. 2010. Res Gestae Diui Augusti. Text, translation, and commentary. Reprint. Cambridge. Cooper, K. 1999. The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass. Corcoran, S. 2000. The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, A.D. 284–324. Rev. ed. Oxford. . 2006. “Galerius, Maximinus, and the Titulature of the Third Tetrarchy.” BICS 49: 231–40. . 2008. “Diocletian.” In A. Barrett, ed., Lives of the Caesars, 228–54. Malden, Mass. Corke-Webster, J. 2020. “How to Praise a Christian Emperor: The Panegyrical Experiments of Eusebius of Caesarea.” In A. Omissi and A. J. Ross, eds., Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, 143–65. Liverpool. Cortés Copete, J. M. 2015. “Paideía e imperio: Una reflexión sobre el valor de la cultura como fundamento del dominio imperial.” Anuario de la Escuela de Historia Virtual 8: 10–30. . 2017. “Governing by Dispatching Letters: The Hadrianic Chancellery.” In C. RosilloLópez, ed., Political Communication in the Roman World, 107–36. Leiden. Coyne, P. 1991. Priscian of Caesarea’s “De Laude Anastasii Imperatoris.” Translated with commentary and introduction. Lewiston, N.Y. Criscuolo, U. 1982. “Libanio e Giuliano.” Vichiana 11: 70–87. Curta, F. 1995. “Atticism, Homer, Neoplatonism, and Fürstenspiegel: Julian’s Second Panegyric to Constantius.” GRBS 36: 177–211.

258      Works Cited Dagron, G. 1968. L’Empire romain d’orient au IVe siècle et les traditions politiques de l’hellénisme: Le témoignage de Thémistios. Travaux et mémoires 3. Paris. . 1974. Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451. Paris. . 2003. Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium. Translated by Jean Birrell. Cambridge. Daly, L. J. 1975. “Themistius’ Concept of Philanthropia.” Byzantion 45: 22–40. Damon, C. 2007. “Rhetoric and Historiography.” In W. J. Dominik and J. M. Hall, ed., A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, 439–50. New York. de Jonge, P. 1948. “Scarcity of Corn and Cornprices in Ammianus Marcellinus.” Mnemosyne 1: 238–45. . 1972. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XVI. Groningen. De Lacy, P., and B. Einarson, ed. 1959. Plutarch: Moralia, vol. 7. LCL. Cambridge, Mass. den Boeft, J., J. W. Drijvers, D. den Hengst, and H. C. Teitler. 2005. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXV. Leiden. . 2018. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI. Leiden. den Boeft, J., D. den Hengst, and H. C. Teitler. 1987. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XX. Groningen. . 1991. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXI. Groningen. Di Mattia, M. 2003. “L’imperatrice Eusebia fra tradizione storiografica, tecnica retorica, funzioni narrative.” SicGymn 56: 327–49. Dindorf, L., ed. 1831. Ioannis Malalae: Chronographia. CSHB. Bonn. Downey, G. 1939. “Julian the Apostate at Antioch.” ChHist 8: 303–15. . 1951. “The Economic Crisis at Antioch under Julian the Apostate.” In Paul R. Coleman-Norton, ed., Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, 312–21. Princeton, N.J. . 1955. “Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century after Christ.” Historia 4: 199–208. . 1961. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton, N.J. Drake, H. A. 2000. Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore. . 2009. “Solar Power in Late Antiquity.” In A. Cain and N. Lenski, eds., The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, 215–26. Farnham. . 2012. “But I digress . . . : Rhetoric and Propaganda in Julian’s Second Oration to Constantius.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 35–46. Swansea. Drinkwater, J. F. 1983. “The ‘Pagan Underground,’ Constantius II’s ‘Secret Service,’ and the Survival, and the Usurpation of Julian the Apostate.” In C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 3: 348–87. Collection Latomus 180. Brussels. . 2000. “The Revolt and Ethnic Origin of the Usurper Magnentius (350–353), and the Rebellion of Vetranio (350).” Chiron 30: 131–59. . 2005. “Maximinus to Diocletian and the ‘Crisis.’ ” In A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 12, The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193–337, 28–66. 2nd ed. Cambridge.

Works Cited    259 . 2007. The Alamanni and Rome, 213–496 (Caracalla to Clovis). Oxford. Drijvers, J. W. 2022. The Forgotten Reign of the Emperor Jovian (363–364): History and Fiction. Oxford. Edmondson, J. 2015. “The Roman Emperor and the Local Communities of the Roman Empire.” In J.-L. Ferrary and J. Scheid, eds., Il princeps romano: Autocrate o magistrato? Fattori giuridici e fattori sociali del potere imperiale da Augusto a Commodo, 701–29. Pavia. Elm, S. 2012. Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome. Berkeley/Los Angeles. . 2017. “The Letter Collection of the Emperor Julian.” In C. Sogno, B. K. Storin, and E. J. Watts, eds., Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide, 54–68. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Elmer, G. 1937. “Die Kupfergeldreform unter Julianus Philosophus.” NZ 70: 25–42. Ensslin, W. 1923. “Kaiser Julians Gesetzgebungswerk und Reichsverwaltung.” Klio 18: 104–99. Errington, R. M. 2000. “Themistius and His Emperors.” Chiron 30: 861–904. . 2001. “The Date of Themistius’ First Speech.” Klio 83: 161–66. . 2006. Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius. Chapel Hill, N.C. Fears, J. Rufus. 1981. “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology.” ANRW II.17.2: 827–948. Festugière, A. J. 1957. “Julien à Macellum.” JRS 47: 53–58. Filippo, A., ed. 2016. Elogio dell’imperatrice Eusebia; Giuliano imperatore. Testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di Adele Filippo. Introduzione e indici a cura di Marco Ugenti. Pisa/Rome. Finley, M. I. 1987. The Use and Abuse of History. Rev. ed. New York. Flower, H. I. 1999. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Reprint. Oxford. . 2006. The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill, N.C. Flower, R. 2013. Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective. Cambridge. . 2015. “Tamquam figmentum hominis: Ammianus, Constantius II, and the Portrayal of Imperial Ritual.” CQ 65: 822–35. . 2016. Imperial Invectives against Constantius II. Translated Texts for Historians. Liverpool. Foerster, R., ed. 1963. Libanii Opera. 12 vols. Reprint. Hildesheim. Fontaine, J. 1978. “Le Julien d’Ammien Marcellin.” In R. Braun and J. Richer, eds., L’empereur Julien: De l’histoire à la légende (331–1715), 31–65. Paris. . 2013. “Introduzione.” In C. Prato and A. Marcone, eds., Giuliano Imperatore: Alla madre degli dei, e altri discorsi, IX–LXXVII. 8th ed. Milan. Fornara, C. W. 1988. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. Reprint. Berkeley/ Los Angeles. Fournier, E. 2010. “The Aduentus of Julian at Sirmium: The Literary Construction of Historical Reality in Ammianus Marcellinus.” In R. M. Frakes, E. D. Digeser, and J. Stephens, eds., The Rhetoric of Power in Late Antiquity: Religion and Politics in Byzantium, Europe, and the Early Islamic World, 13–45. New York. Frakes, R. M. 2000. “Ammianus Marcellinus and His Intended Audience.” In C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 10: 392–442. Collection Latomus 254. Brussels.

260      Works Cited Galletier, E. 1955. Panégyriques latins. Vol. 3 (11–12). Paris. García Ruiz, M. P. 2003. “Función retórica y significado polίtico de la Gratiarum Actio (Claudii) Mamertini de consulato suo Iuliano imperatori.” In C. A. del Real, P. Garcίa Ruiz, Á. Sánchez–Ostiz, and J. B. Torres Guerra, eds., Urbs Aeterna: Homenaje a la profesora Carmen Castillo, 461–80. Pamplona. , ed. 2006a. Claudio Mamertino: Panegírico (Gratiarum actio) al emperador Juliano. Pamplona. . 2006b. “Quasi quoddam salutare sidus (PL III [11] 2,3): El tópico y su contexto histórico.” In E. Calderón, A. Morales, and M. Valverde, eds., Koinòs lógos: Homenaje al profesor José García López, 293–304. Murcia. . 2007. “Amiano y los juicios de Calcedonia: Contradicciones y paradojas.” Faventia 29: 47–60. . 2008a. “La evolución de la imagen política del emperador Juliano a través de los discursos consulares: Mamertino, Pan. III [11] y Libanio, Or. XII.” Minerva 21: 137–53. . 2008b. “Eusebia vista por Amiano: Un retrato entre líneas.” CFC(L) 28: 49–64. . 2012. “Significado de σωφροσύνη (αὐτή) en el Encomio a Eusebia de Juliano.” Emerita 80: 69–87. . 2013a. “The ‘Marcellus Case’ and the Loyalty of Julian: ‘Latent Arguments’ and Otherness in Ammianus’ Res Gestae.” Talanta 45: 81–96. . 2013b. “Rethinking the Political Role of Pliny’s Panegyricus in the Panegyrici Latini.” Arethusa 46: 195–216. . 2015. “Una lectura conjunta del primer Encomio a Constancio y el Encomio a Eusebia de Juliano.” ExClass 19: 155–73. . 2018. “Julian’s Self-Representation in Coins and Texts.” In D. W. P. Burgersdijk and A. J. Ross, ed., Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, 204–33. Leiden. Garnsey, P. 2010. “Roman Patronage.” In S. McGill, C. Sogno, and E. Watts, edd., From the Tetrarchs to the Theodosians: Later Roman History and Culture, 284–450 CE, 33–54. Cambridge. Gärtner, H. 1968. Einige Überlegungen zur kaiser-zeitlichen Panegyrik und zu Ammians Charakteristik des Kaisers Julians. Mainz. Geffcken, J. 1914. Kaiser Julianus. Leipzig. Gibbon, E. 1993. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. With an introduction by Hugh Trevor-Roper. Vol. 2. New York/London. Gibson, B. 2018. “Gratitude to Gratian: Ausonius’ Thanksgiving for His Consulship.” In D. W. P. Burgersdijk and A. J. Ross, ed., Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, 270–88. Leiden. Gibson, R. K., and R. Morello. 2012. Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger: An Introduction. Cambridge. Gilliard, F. D. 1964. “Notes on the Coinage of Julian the Apostate.” JRS 54: 135–41. Gladis, K. 1907. “De Themistii Libanii Iuliani in Constantium orationibus.” Ph.D. diss., University of Breslau. Gleason, M. W. 1986. “Festive Satire: Julian’s Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch.” JRS 76: 106–19. Goffart, W. 1970. “Did Julian Combat Venal Suffragium? A Note on CTh 2.29.1.” CP 65: 145–51.

Works Cited    261 . 1981. “Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians.” AHR 86: 275–306. Gračanin, H. 2014. “Religious Policy and Policizing Religion during the Tetrarchy.” In V. Vachkova and D. Dimitrov, eds., Serdica Edict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration, 143–62. Sofia. Greco, G. M. 2003. “Imerio e l’encomio della città.” In U. Criscuolo, ed., Da Costantino a Teodosio il Grande: Cultura, società, diritto, 153–66. Naples. Green, R. P. H., ed. 1999. Decimi Magni Ausonii Opera. Oxford. Greenlee, C. 2020. “The Ideology of Imperial Unity in Themistius (Or. 1) and Libanius (Or. 59).” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., The Sons of Constantine, AD 337–361: In the Shadows of Constantine and Julian, 133–56. Cham. Greenwood, D. N. 2014. “Five Latin Inscriptions from Julian’s Pagan Restoration.” BICS 57:101–19. Griffin, M. T. 1992. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. Oxford. Guidetti, F. 2015. “I ritratti dell’imperatore Giuliano.” In A. Marcone, ed., L’imperatore Giuliano: Realtà storica e rappresentazione, 12–49. Florence. Gutzwiller, H. 1942. Die Neujahrsrede des Konsuls Claudius Mamertinus vor dem Kaiser Julian. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Basel. Guzmán Armario, F. J. 2006. Romanos y bárbaros en las fronteras del Imperio Romano según el testimonio de Amiano Marcelino. Madrid. Haarer, F. 2006. Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World. Liverpool. Harries, J. 2002. Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome, AD 407–485. Reprint. Oxford. . 2012. “Julian the Lawgiver.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 121–36. Swansea. Heather, P. 1991. Goths and Romans, 332–489. Oxford. . 1998. “Themistius: A Political Philosopher.” In M. Whitby, ed., The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 125–50. Leiden. . 2020. “The Gallic Wars of Julian Caesar.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, 64–96. Leiden. Heather, P., and D. Moncur. 2001. Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century: Select Orations of Themistius. Liverpool. Hebblewhite, M. 2017. The Emperor and the Army in the Later Roman Empire, AD 235–395. New York. . 2020. Theodosius and the Limits of Empire. New York. Hekster, O. 2015. Emperors and Ancestors: Roman Rulers and the Constraints of Tradition. Cambridge. Helleman, W. E. 1995. “Penelope as Lady Philosophy.” Phoenix 49: 283–302. Henck, N. 1999/2000. “From Macellum to Milan: The Movements of Julian the Apostate from A.D. 348 to 355.” Kodai 10: 105–16. . 2001a. “Constantius’ Paideia, Intellectual Milieu, and Promotion of the Liberal Arts.” PCPhS 47: 172–87. . 2001b. “Constantius ὁ Φιλοκτίστης?” DOP 55: 279–304. Hopkins, K. 1978a. “Rules of Evidence.” Review of Fergus Millar’s The Emperor in the Roman World. JRS 68: 178–86. . 1978b. Conquerors and Slaves. Sociological Studies in Roman History, vol. 1. Cambridge.

262      Works Cited . 1993. “Rhetoricians Rule . . . or Bishops Bamboozle.” TLS 4699: 11. . 1998. “Christian Number and Its Implications.” JECS 6: 185–226. Humphries, M. 1998. “Savage Humour: Christian Anti-Panegyric in Hilary of Poitiers’ Against Constantius.” In M. Whitby, ed., The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 201–23. Leiden. . 2008. “From Usurper to Emperor: The Politics of Legitimation in the Age of Constantine.” JLA 1: 82–100. . 2012. “The Tyrant’s Mask? Images of Good and Bad Rule in Julian’s Letter to the Athenians.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 75–90. Swansea. Hunt, D. 1998. “Julian.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13, The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425, 44–77. Cambridge. Huttner, U. 2004. Recusatio Imperii: Ein politisches Ritual zwischen Ethik und Taktik. Hildesheim. James, L. 2012. “Is There an Empress in the Text? Julian’s Speech of Thanks to Eusebia.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 47–59. Swansea. Janin, R. 1964. Constantinople byzantine: Développement urbain et répertoire topographique. 2nd ed. Paris. Janka, M. 2008. “Quae philosophia fuit, satura facta est: Julians ‘Misopogon’ zwischen Gattungskonvention und Sitz im Leben.” In C. Schäfer, ed., Kaiser Julian “Apostata” und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum, 177–206. Millennium Studies 21. Berlin. Jenkins, F. W. 1987. “Theatrical Metaphors in Ammianus Marcellinus.” Eranos 85: 55–63. Jones, A. H. M. 1986. The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey. 2 vols. Reprint. Baltimore. . 1998. The Greek City: From Alexander to Justinian. Reprint. Oxford. Jones, C. P. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, Mass. Kaegi, W. E. 1967. “Domestic Military Problems of Julian the Apostate.” ByzF 2: 247–64. Kaster, R. 1988. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Kelly, C. 1998. “Emperors, Government and Bureaucracy.” In A. Cameron and P. Garnsey, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13, The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425, 138–83. Cambridge. . 2006. Ruling the Later Roman Empire. Reprint. Cambridge, Mass. . 2015. “Pliny and Pacatus: Past and Present in Imperial Panegyric.” In J. Wienand, ed., Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, 215– 39. Oxford. Kelly, G. 2004. “Ammianus and the Great Tsunami.” JRS 94: 141–67. . 2005. “Constantius II, Julian, and the Example of Marcus Aurelius (Ammianus Marcellinus XXI, 16, 11–12).” Latomus 64: 409–16. . 2007. “The Sphragis and Closure of the Res Gestae.” In J. den Boeft et al., eds., Ammianus after Julian: The Reign of Valentinian and Valens in Books 26–31 of the “Res Gestae,” 219–41. Leiden. . 2008. Ammianus Marcellinus: The Allusive Historian. Cambridge. . 2013. “The Political Crisis of A.D. 375–376.” Chiron 43: 357–409.

Works Cited    263 . 2018. “Ammianus, Valens, and Antioch.” In S.-P. Bergjan and S. Elm, eds., Antioch II: The Many Faces of Antioch; Intellectual Exchange and Religious Diversity, CE 350–450,: 137–62. Tübingen. Kemezis, A. M. 2014. Greek Narratives of the Roman Empire under the Severans: Cassius Dio, Philostratus, and Herodian. Cambridge. Kennedy, G. A. 1983. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton, N.J. Kent, J. P. C. 1959. “An Introduction to the Coinage of Julian the Apostate (A.D. 360–3).” NC 19: 109–17. . 1981. Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 8, The Family of Constantine I, AD 337–364. London. Keppie, L. 1998. The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire. Norman, Okla. Kienast, D. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. 2nd ed. Darmstadt. Klein, R., ed. 1978. Julian Apostata. Wege der Forschung 509. Darmstadt. Kolb, F. 2001. Herrscherideologie in der Spätantike. Berlin. Labriola, I. 1972. “La pubblicazione del messaggio agli Ateniesi di Giuliano.” Belfagor 27: 522–29. . 1975. Giuliano “l’Apostata”: Autobiografia, messagio agli Ateniesi. Saggio e traduzione. Florence . . 1991–92. “La lode di Atene nella Lettera agli Ateniesi dell’Imperatore Giuliano (tradizione e attualità).” InvLuc 13–14: 179–204. Lane Fox, R. 1997. “The Itinerary of Alexander: Constantius to Julian.” CQ 47: 239–52. Lauffer, S., ed. 1971. Diokletians Preisedikt. Berlin. Leadbetter, B. 1998. “The Illegitimacy of Constantine and the Birth of the Tetrarchy.” In S. N. C. Lieu and D. Montserrat, eds., Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend, 74–85. New York. . 2009. Galerius and the Will of Diocletian. New York. Lee, A. D. 2007. War in Late Antiquity: A Social History. Malden, Mass. Lendon, J. E. 1997. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford. . 2006. “The Legitimacy of the Roman Emperor: Against Weberian Legitimacy and Imperial ‘Strategies of Legitimation.’ ” In A. Kolb, ed., Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis. Konzepte, Prinzipien und Strategien der Administration im römischen Kaiserreich, 53–63. Berlin. . 2009. “Historians without History: Against Roman Historiography.” In A. Feldherr, ed., Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, 41–61. Cambridge. Lenski, N. 2002. Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century. Berkeley/Los Angeles. . 2008. “Evoking the Pagan Past: Instinctu divinitatis and Constantine’s Capture of Rome.” JLA 1: 204–57. . 2015. “Constantine and the Tyche of Constantinople.” In J. Wienand, ed., Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, 330–52. Oxford. . 2016. Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Authority and Civic Politics. Philadelphia. Leppin, H. 2015. “Coping with the Tyrant’s Faction: Civil-War Amnesties and Christian Discourses in the Fourth Century AD.” In J. Wienand, ed., Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD, 198–214. Oxford.

264      Works Cited Leppin, H., and W. Portmann. 1998. Themistios: Staatsreden. Übersetzung, Einführung und Erläuterungen. Stuttgart. Levick, B. M. 1982. “Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage.” Antichthon 16: 104–16. Lewis, W. 2020. “Constantine II and His Brothers: The Civil War of AD 340.” In N. BakerBrian and S. Tougher, eds., The Sons of Constantine, AD 337–361: In the Shadows of Constantine and Julian, 57–93. Cham. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. 1972. Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford. Lieu, S. N. C., ed. 1989. The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic. 2nd ed. Liverpool. Lieu, S. N. C., and D. Montserrat, eds. 1996. From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views; A Source History. New York. Lightfoot, C. S. 1988. “Facts and Fiction: The Third Siege of Nisibis (A.D. 350).” Historia 37: 105–25. Lo Cascio, E. 2005. “The New State of Diocletian and Constantine: From the Tetrarchy to the Reunification of the Empire.” In A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 12, The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193–337, 170–83. 2nd ed. Cambridge. Long, J. 1993. “Structures of Irony in Julian’s Misopogon.” AncW 24: 15–23. López Sánchez, F. 2012. “Julian and His Coinage: A Very Constantinian Prince.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 159–82. Swansea2. Luchner, K. 2008. “Grund, Fundament, Mauerwerk, Dach?—Julians φιλοσοφία im Netzwerk seiner Briefe.” In C. Schäfer, ed., Kaiser Julian “Apostata” und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum, 221–52. Millennium Studies 21. Berlin. MacCormack, S. G. 1972. “Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of aduentus.” Historia 21: 721–52. . 1975. “Latin Prose Panegyrics.” In T. A. Dorey, ed., Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II, 143–205. London. . 1990. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Reprint. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Mackay, C. S. 1999. “Lactantius and the Succession to Diocletian.” CP 94: 198–209. MacMullen, R. 1967. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire. Reprint. Cambridge, Mass. . 1976. Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235–337. New Haven, Conn./ London. Madonna, A. 2021. “Giuliano e la costruzione del consenso: Il panegirico ‘reticente’ di Claudio Mamertino.” Class. et Christ. 16: 235–59. Maguinness, W. S. 1932. “Some Methods of the Latin Panegyrists.” Hermathena 22: 42–61. . 1933. “Locutions and Formulae of the Latin Panegyrists.” Hermathena 23: 117–38. Maisano, R., ed. 1995. Discorsi di Temistio. Turin. Malosse, P-L. 2008. “Rhétorique, philosophie et prostitution: La lettre de Julien au sénateur Nilus (Ep. 82 Bidez).” In D. Auger and É. Wolff, eds., Culture classique et christianisme, Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue, 57–70. Paris. Manders, E. 2012. Coining Images of Power: Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193–284. Leiden.

Works Cited    265 Maranesi, A. 2012. “Formazione del consenso e panegirici all’epoca dell’imperatore Giuliano.” RIL 145: 43–55. . 2016. Vincere la memoria, costruire il potere: Costantino, i retori, la lode dell’autorità e l’autorità della lode. Milan. Marcone, A. 1981. “Il conflitto fra l’imperatore Giuliano e gli Antiocheni.” A&R 26: 142–52. . 1984. “Un panegirico rovesciato: Pluralità di modelli e contaminazione letteraria nel “Misopogon” giulianeo.” REAug 30: 226–39. Marcos, Moysés. 2012. “Some Notes on the Backchannel Communications of the Prefect Musonianus with the Persians.” Historia 61: 507–10. . 2014. “Constantine, Dalmatius Caesar, and the Summer of A.D. 337.” Latomus 73: 748–74. . 2015. “A Tale of Two Commanders: Ammianus Marcellinus on the Campaigns of Constantius II and Julian on the Northern Frontiers.” AJP 136: 669–708. . 2018a. “Iamblichus’ Epistles, Fourth-Century Philosophical and Political Epistolography, and the Neoplatonic Curricula at Athens and Alexandria.” CQ 68: 275–91. . 2018b. Review of Cristina Rosillo-López’s edited volume “Political Communication in the Roman World.” https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2018/2018.04.38. . 2019a. “Recuperata re publica: Julian, Serdica, and the Civic Promotion of an Emperor in Late 361/Early 362 CE.” AJP 140: 513–59. . 2019b. “Callidior ceteris persecutor: The Emperor Julian and His Place in Christian Historiography.” HSCP 110: 371–451. . 2020. “Julian, Aetius and ‘the Galileans.’ ” CQ 70: 865–70. . 2022. “Ille ut fax uel incensus malleolus: Ammianus and His Swift Narration of Julian’s Balkan Itinerary in 361 CE.” In M. Hanaghan and D. Woods, eds., Ammianus Marcellinus, from Soldier to Author, 325–56. Leiden. Marincola, J. 2017. On Writing History: From Herodotus to Herodian. New York. Marrou, H. I. 1982. A History of Education in Antiquity. Trans. G. Lamb. Reprint. Madison, Wis. Matthews, J. 1994. “The Origin of Ammianus.” CQ 44: 252–69. . 1998. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364–425. Reprint. Oxford. . 2007. The Roman Empire of Ammianus. With a new introduction. Ann Arbor, Mich. McEvoy, M. 2016. “Constantia: The Last Constantinian.” Antichthon 50: 154–79. McLynn, N. 1994. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley/Los Angeles. . 2014. “Julian and the Christian Professors.” In C. Harrison, C. Humfress, and I. Sandwell, eds., Being Christian in Late Antiquity: A Festschrift for Gillian Clark, 120–36. Oxford. . 2020. “The Persian Expedition.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, : 293–325. Leiden. Millar, F. 1992. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC—AD 337). 2nd ed. Ithaca, N.Y. . 2007. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450). Reprint. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Moles, J. 1990. “The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom.” In F. Cairns and M. Heath, eds., PLILS 6: 297–375. Liverpool. Morstein-Marx, R. 2021. Julius Caesar and the Roman People. Cambridge.

266      Works Cited Moser, M. 2018. Emperor and Senators in the Reign of Constantius II: Maintaining Imperial Rule between Rome and Constantinople in the Fourth Century AD. Cambridge. Mosig-Walburg, K. 1999. “Zur Schlacht bei Singara.” Historia 48: 330–84. Müller-Seidel, I. 1955. “Die Usurpation Julians des Abtrünnigen im Lichte seiner Germanenpolitik.” HZ 180: 225–44. Mynors, R. A. B. 1964. XII Panegyrici Latini. Oxford. Neri, V. 1984. Costanzo, Giuliano e l’ideale del civilis princeps nelle storie di Ammiano Marcellino. Studi Bizantini e Slavi 1. Rome. Niccolai, L. 2017. “Julian, Plutarch, and the Dangers of Self-Praise.” GRBS 57: 1058–84. Nickbakht, M. A., and C. Scardino, ed. 2021. Aurelius Victor: Historiae Abbreviatae. Text, translation, and commentary. Paderborn. Nixon, C. E. V. 1983. “Latin Panegyric in the Tetrarchic and Constantinian Period.” In B. Croke and A. Emmett, eds., History and Historians in Late Antiquity, 88–99. Sydney. . 1991. “Aurelius Victor and Julian.” CP 86: 113–25. Nixon, C. E. V., and B. Rodgers. 2015. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Reprint. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Noreña, C. F. 2009. “The Early Imperial Monarchy.” In A. Barchiesi and W. Scheidel, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Roman Studies, 533–46. Oxford. . 2011a. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power. Cambridge. . 2011b. “Self-Fashioning in the Panegyricus.” In P. Roche, ed., Pliny’s Praise: The Panegyricus in the Roman World, 29–44. Cambridge. Norman, A. F., ed. 1969. Libanius, Selected Orations. Vol. 1. LCL. Cambridge, Mass. . 1992. Libanius, Autobiography and Selected Letters. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass. O’Brien, P. H. 2002. “Speeches and Imperial Characterization in Ammianus Marcellinus.” Ph.D. diss., Boston University. . 2013a. “Vetranio’s Revenge? The Rhetorical Prowess of Ammianus’ Constantius.” DHA supp. 8: 221–58. . 2013b. “Ammianus Marcellinus, the Caesar Julian, and Rhetorical Failure.” CEA 50: 139–60. Oliver, J. H. 1989. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178. Philadelphia. Omissi, A. 2016. “Damnatio Memoriae or Creatio Memoriae? Memory Sanctions as Creative Processes in the Fourth Century AD.” CJ 62: 170–99. . 2018. Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire: Civil War, Panegyric, and the Construction of Legitimacy. Oxford. Osgood, J. 2014. Turia: A Roman Woman’s Civil War. Oxford. Pack, E. 1986. Städte und Steuern in der Politik Julians: Untersuchungen zu den Quellen eines Kaiserbildes. Collection Latomus 194. Brussels. Pagliara, A. 2015. “Giuliano Cesare panegirista di Costanzo II.” In A. Marcone, ed., L’imperatore Giuliano: Realtà storica e rappresentazione, 87–118. Florence. Penella, R. J. 2000. The Private Orations of Themistius. Berkeley/Los Angeles. . 2007. Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Pernot, L. 1993. La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain. 2 vols. Paris. . 2015. Epideictic Rhetoric: Questioning the Stakes of Ancient Praise. Austin, Tex.

Works Cited    267 . 2020. “What Is a ‘Panegyric’?” In A. Omissi and A. J. Ross, eds., Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, 25–39. Liverpool. Petit, P. 1957. Les étudiants de Libanius. Paris. Petkas, A. 2018a. “The King in Words: Performance and Fiction in Synesius’ De Regno.” AJP 139: 123–51. . 2018b. “Epideictic Oratory.” In S. McGill and E. J. Watts, ed., A Companion to Late Antique Literature, : 193–208. New York. Pichon, R. 1906. Les derniers écrivains profanes. Paris. Platner, S. B. 1906. “The Septimontium and the Seven Hills.” CP 1: 69–80. Pomeroy, S. B. 1976. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York. Potter, D. S. 1996. “Emperors, Their Borders and Their Neighbours: The Scope of Imperial Mandata.” In D. L. Kennedy, ed., The Roman Army in the East, 49–66. JRA Supplementary 18. Ann Arbor, Mich. . 2014. The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395. 2nd ed. New York. Prato, C. 2013. “Per l’edizione degli scritti di Giuliano.” In C. Prato and A. Marcone, eds., Giuliano imperatore: Alla madre degli dei, e altri discorsi, LXXXV–CIII. 8th ed. Milan. Prato, C., and A. Marcone, eds. 2013. Giuliano imperatore: Alla madre degli dei, e altri discorsi. 8th ed. Milan. Prato, C., and D. Micalella, eds. 1979. Giuliano imperatore: Misopogon. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento. Rome. Price, S. R. F. 1986. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Reprint. Cambridge. Quiroga Puertas, A. 2008. “Deflecting Attention and Shaping Reality with Rhetoric (The Case of the Riot of the Statues of A.D. 387 in Antioch).” Nova Tellus 26: 135–53. . 2009. “Julian’s Misopogon and the Subversion of Rhetoric.” AntTard 17: 127–35. Race, W. H., ed. 2019. Menander Rhetor [Dionysius of Halicarnassus]: Ars Rhetorica. LCL. Cambridge, Mass. Rebenich, S. 2020. “Julian’s Afterlife: The Reception of a Roman Emperor.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, 398–420. Leiden. Rebenich, S., and H-U. Wiemer. 2020. “Introduction: Approaching Julian.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, 1–37. Leiden. Rees, R. 1998. “The Private Lives of Public Figures in Latin Prose Panegyric.” In M. Whitby, ed., The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 77–101. Leiden/ Boston. . 2002. Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric, AD 289–307. Oxford. . 2007. “Panegyric.” In W. J. Dominik and J. M. Hall, eds., A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, 136–48. New York. . 2010. “The Form and Function of Narrative in Panegyric.” In D. H. Berry and A. Erskine, eds., Form and Function in Roman Oratory, 105–21. Cambridge. , ed. 2012a. Latin Panegyric. Oxford. . 2012b. “Bright Lights, Big City: Pacatus and the Panegyrici Latini.” In L. Grig and G. Kelly, eds., Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, 203–22. Oxford. . 2018. “Panegyric.” In S. McGill and E. J. Watts, eds., A Companion to Late Antique Literature, 209–20. New York.

268      Works Cited Reinsch, D. R. 2009. “Eine Satire als Inschrift am Torbogen? Der Misopogon: Ein angebliches ‘Edikt’ Kaiser Julians.” In S. Kotzabassi and G. Mavromatis, eds., Realia byzantine, 247–51. Byzantinisches Archiv 22. Berlin/New York. Ritoré Ponce, J. 2000. Temistio: Discursos políticos. Introducción, traducción y notas. Biblioteca Clásica Gredos 273. Madrid. Roberto, U. 2015. “Giuliano e la memoria politica della tetrarchia.” In A. Marcone, ed., L’imperatore Giuliano: Realtà storica e rappresentazione, 50–62. Florence. Roche, P. 2011. “Pliny’s Thanksgiving: An Introduction to the Panegyricus.” In P. Roche, ed., Pliny’s Praise: The Panegyricus in the Roman World, 1–28. Cambridge. Rodgers, B. 1986. “Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini.” Historia 35: 69–104. Rolfe, J. C., ed. 1935, 1939, 1940. Ammianus Marcellinus. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass. Rosen, K. 1969. “Beobachtungen zur Erhebung Julians 360–361 n. Chr.” AClass 12: 121–49. . 2006. Julian: Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser. Stuttgart. Rosillo-López, C., ed. 2017. Political Communication in the Roman World. Leiden. Ross, A. J. 2014. “Constantius and the Sieges of Amida and Nisibis: Ammianus’ Relationship with Julian’s Panegyrics.” AC 57: 127–54. . 2016a. “Libanius the Historian? Praise and the Presentation of the Past in Or. 59.” GRBS 56: 293–320. . 2016b. Ammianus’ Julian: Narrative and Genre in the “Res Gestae.” Oxford. . 2018a. “Ammianus and the Written Past.” In O. Devillers and B. B. Sebastiani, eds., Sources et modèles des historiens anciens, 319–34. Bordeaux. . 2018b. “The Constantinians’ Return to the West: Julian’s Depiction of Constantius II in Oration 1.” In D. W. P. Burgersdijk and A. J. Ross, eds., Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, 183–203. Leiden. . 2020a. “Text and Paratext: Reading the Emperor Julian via Libanius’ Epitaphios.” AJP 141: 241–81. . 2020b. “The Audience in Imperial Panegyric.” In A. Omissi and A. J. Ross, eds., Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, 255–78. Liverpool. Rougé, J., ed. 1966. Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Sources Chrétiennes 124. Paris. Rubin, Z. 1998. “Pagan Propaganda during the Usurpation of Magnentius (350–353).” SCI 17: 124–41. Russell, D. A., and N. G.Wilson, eds. 1981. Menander Rhetor. Edited with translation and commentary. Oxford. Sabbah, G. 1970. Review of H. Gärtner’s “Einige Überlegungen zur kaiser-zeitlichen Panegyrik und zu Ammians Charakteristik des Kaisers Julians.” REL 48: 596–98. . 1978. La méthode d’Ammien Marcellin: Recherches sur la construction du discours historique dans les “Res gestae.” Paris. . 1984. “De la rhétorique à la communication politique: Les Panégyriques latins.” BAGB 43: 363–88. Saliou, C. 2009. “Le palais impérial d’Antioche et son contexte à l’époque de Julien: Réflexions sur l’apport des sources littéraires à l’histoire d’un espace urbain.” AntTard 17: 235– 50. Salway, B. 2008. “Roman Consuls, Imperial Politics, and Egyptian Papyri: The Consulates of 325 and 344 CE.” JLA 1: 278–310.

Works Cited    269 Salzman, M. R. 1990. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley/Los Angeles. . 2002. The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire. Cambridge, Mass. . 2011. The “Letters” of Symmachus: Book 1. Trans. Michele Renee Salzman and Michael Roberts. Atlanta. . 2016. “Constantine and the Roman Senate: Conflict, Cooperation, and Concealed Resistance.” In M. Salzman, M. Sághy, and R. Lizzi Testa, eds., Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, 11–45. Cambridge. Sargenti, M. 1979. “Aspetti e problemi dell’opera legislativa dell’Imperatore Giuliano.” In Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana, Atti III convegno internazionale, 323–81. Perugia. Schmidt-Hofner, S. 2008. Reagieren und Gestalten: Der Regierungsstil des spätrömischen Kaisers am Beispiel der Gesetzgebung Valentinians I. Munich. . 2020. “Reform, Routine, and Propaganda: Julian the Lawgiver.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, 124–71. Leiden. Scholl, R. 1994. Historische Beiträge zu den julianischen Reden des Libanios. Stuttgart. Scicolone, S. 1982. “Le accezioni dell’appellativo ‘Galilei’ in Giuliano.” Aevum 56: 71–80. Scivoletto, N. 1970. “La civilitas del IV secolo e il significato del Breviarium di Eutropio.” GIF 22: 14–45. Seager, R. 1984. “Some Imperial Virtues in the Latin Prose Panegyrics: The Demands of Propaganda and the Dynamics of Literary Composition.” In F. Cairns, ed., PLLS 4: 129– 65. Liverpool. . 1997. “Perceptions of Eastern Frontier Policy in Ammianus, Libanius, and Julian (337–363).” CQ 47: 253–68. Seeck, O. 1883. Q. Aurelii Symmachi quae supersunt. Berlin. . 1911. Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. Vol. 4. Stuttgart. Selem, A. 1971. “A proposito del comando militare di Giuliano in Gallia secondo Ammiano.” RCCM 13: 193–200. Seston, W. 1940. “L’ ‘humiliation’ de Galère.” REA 42: 515–19. Seyfarth, W., ed. 1999. Ammiani Marcellini rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt. 2 vols. Reprint. Stuttgart/Leipzig. Sharrock, A. 2000. “Intratextuality: Texts, Parts, and (W)holes in Theory.” In A. Sharrock and H. Morales, eds., Intratextuality: Greek and Roman Textual Relations, 1–39. Oxford. Sherk, R. K., ed. 1994. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Translated Documents of Greece & Rome 6. Reprint. Cambridge. Sivan, H. 1996. “Was Theodosius I a Usurper?” Klio 78: 198–211. Skinner, A. 2008. “The Early Development of the Senate of Constantinople.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32: 128–48. . 2015. “Violence at Constantinople in A.D. 341–2 and Themistius, Oration I.” JRS 105: 234–49. Smallwood, E. M. 1966. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge.

270      Works Cited . 1967. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero. Cambridge. Smith, R. 2007. “A Lost Historian of Alexander ‘Descended from Alexander,’ and Read by Julian? Praxagoras of Athens Reviewed in the Light of Attic Epigraphy.” Historia 56: 356–80. . 2012. Julian’s Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate. Reprint. New York. Sogno, C. 2017. “The Letter Collection of Quintus Aurelius Symmachus.” In C. Sogno, B. K. Storin, and E. J. Watts, eds., Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide, 175–89. Berkeley/Los Angeles. Starr, C. G. 1956. “Aurelius Victor: Historian of Empire.” AHR 61: 574–86. Stoehr-Monjou, A. 2020. “Sidonius’ Panegyrics.” In G. Kelly and J. van Waarden, eds., The Edinburgh Companion to Sidonius Apollinaris, 317–40. Edinburgh. Straub, J. 1964. Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike. Reprint. Stuttgart. . 1972. Regeneratio imperii: Aufsätze über Roms Kaisertum und Reich im Spiegel der heidnischen und christlichen Publizistik. Darmstadt. Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–235. Oxford. . 2013. Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works. Cambridge. . 2021. Themistius and Valens: Orations 6–13. Liverpool. Swift, L. J. and J. H.  Oliver. 1962. “Constantius II on Flavius Philippus.” AJP 83: 247–64. Syme, R. 1983. Historia Augusta Papers. Oxford. . 1997. Tacitus. 2 vols. Reprint. Oxford. Szidat, J. 1975. “Zur Ankunft Iulians in Sirmium 361 n. Chr. auf seinem Zug gegen Constantius II.” Historia 24: 375–78. . 1981. “Zur Wirkung und Aufnahme der Münzpropaganda (Iul. Misop. 355 d).” MH 38: 22–33. . 1997. “Die Usurpation Iulians: Ein Sonderfall?” In F. Paschoud and J. Szidat, eds., Usurpationen in der Spätantike, 63–70. Stuttgart. . 2010. Usurpator tanti nominis: Kaiser und Usurpator in der Spätantike (337–476 n. Chr.). Stuttgart. Talbert, R. J. A. 1980. “Pliny the Younger as Governor of Bithynia-Pontus.” In C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 2, 412–35. Collection Latomus 168. Brussels. . 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton, N.J. Tantillo, I., ed. 1997. La prima orazione di Giuliano a Costanzo. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Saggi di storia antica 10. Rome. . 2014. “Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus: Signo Honorius?” ZPE 190: 271–78. Taylor, L. R. 1975. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor. Reprint. New York. Teitler, H. C. 1992. “Ammianus and Constantius: Image and Reality.” In J. den Boeft, D. den Hengst, and H. C. Teitler, eds., Cognitio gestorum: The Historiographic Art of Ammianus Marcellinus, 117–22. Amsterdam. Thompson, E. A. 1943. “Three Notes on Julian in 361 A.D.” Hermathena 62: 83–95.

Works Cited    271 . 1969. The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus. Reprint. Groningen. Tiersch, C. 2018. “A Dispute—about Hellenism? Julian and the Citizens of Antioch.” In S.-P. Bergjan and S. Elm, eds., Antioch II: The Many Faces of Antioch; Intellectual Exchange and Religious Diversity, CE 350–450, 103–36. Tübingen. Tomlin, R. S. O. 1980. Review of G. W. Bowersock’s “Julian the Apostate.” Phoenix 34: 266–70. Tougher, S. 1998a. “In Praise of an Empress: Julian’s Speech of Thanks to Eusebia.” In M. Whitby, ed., The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, 105–23. Leiden/Boston. . 1998b. “The Advocacy of an Empress: Julian and Eusebia.” CQ 48: 595–99. . 2000. “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Empress Eusebia: A Split Personality?” G&R 47: 94–101. . 2004. “Julian’s Bull Coinage: Kent Revisited.” CQ 54: 327–30. . 2007. Julian the Apostate. Debates and Documents in Ancient History. Edinburgh. . 2012. “Reading between the Lines: Julian’s First Panegyric on Constantius II.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 19–34. Swansea. . 2020. “Julian and Claudius Mamertinus: Panegyric and Polemic in East and West.” In A. Omissi and A. J. Ross, eds., Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, 117–40. Liverpool. Tränkle, H. 1976. “Der Caesar Gallus bei Ammian.” MH 33: 162–79. . 2008. “Modestus und Kaiser Valens (Amm. 30,4,2).” Hermes 136: 505–8. Trapp, M. 2012. “The Emperor’s Shadow: Julian in His Correspondence.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate, 105–20. Swansea. Ugenti, M. 2016. “Introduzione.” In A. Filippo, ed., Elogio dell’imperatrice Eusebia; Giuliano imperatore, 11–18. Pisa/Rome. Valensi, L. 1957. “Quelques réflexions sur le pouvoir impérial d’après Ammien Marcellin.” BAGB 16: 62–107. Van Dam, R. 1996. “Governors of Cappadocia during the Fourth Century.” Medieval Prosopography 17: 7–93. Vanderspoel, J. 1995. Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and “Paideia” from Constantius to Theodosius. Ann Arbor, Mich. . 1998. “Julian and the Mithraic Bull.” AHB 12: 113–19. . 2012. “A Tale of Two Cities: Themistius on Rome and Constantinople.” In L. Grig and G. Kelly, eds., Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, 223–40. Oxford. . 2013. “The Longevity of Falsehood: Julian’s Political Purpose and the Historical Tradition.” DHA supp. 8: 327–36. . 2020. “From the Tetrarchy to the Constantinian Dynasty: A Narrative Introduction.” In N. Baker-Brian and S. Tougher, eds., The Sons of Constantine, AD 337–361: In the Shadows of Constantine and Julian, 23–55. Cham. Van Hoof, L. 2013. “Performing Paideia: Greek Culture as an Instrument for Social Promotion in the Fourth Century A.D.” CQ 63: 387–406.

272      Works Cited Van Hoof, L., and P. Van Nuffelen. 2011. “Monarchy and Mass Communication: Antioch A.D. 362/3 Revisited.” JRS 101: 166–84. . 2013. “No stories for old Men: Damophilus of Bithynia and Plutarch in Julian’s Misopogon.” In A. J. Quiroga Puertas, ed., The Purpose of Rhetoric in Late Antiquity: From Performance to Exegesis, 211–25. Tübingen. Van Nuffelen, P. 2002. “Deux fausses lettres de Julien l’Apostat (La lettre aux juifs, Ep. 51 [Wright], et la lettre à Arsacius, Ep. 84 [Bidez]).” VChr 56: 131–50. . 2006. “Earthquakes in A.D. 363–368 and the Date of Libanius, Oratio 18.” CQ 56: 657–61. Vatsend, K. 2000. Die Rede Julians auf Kaiserin Eusebia: Abfassungszeit, Gattungszugehörigkeit, panegyrische Topoi und Vergleiche, Zweck. Oslo. Veyne, P. 1976. Le pain et le cirque: Sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique. Paris. Vogler, C. 1979. Constance II et l’administration impériale. Strasbourg. Waldron, B. 2022. Dynastic Politics in the Age of Diocletian, AD 284–311. Edinburgh. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1981. “The Emperor and His Virtues.” Historia 30: 298–323. . 1982. “Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King.” JRS 72: 32–48. Wardman, A. E. 1984. “Usurpers and Internal Conflicts in the 4th Century A.D.” Historia 33: 220–37. Ware, C. 2012. Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition. Cambridge. . 2019. “Panegyric and the Discourse of Praise in Late Antiquity.” JRS 109: 291–304. . 2021. A Literary Commentary on “Panegyrici Latini” VI(7): An Oration Delivered before the Emperor Constantine in Trier, ca. AD 310. Cambridge. Washington, B. 2020. “Playing with Conventions in Julian’s Encomium to Eusebia: Does Gender Make a Difference?” In A. Omissi and A. J. Ross, eds., Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, 93–116. Liverpool. Webb, P. H. 1910. “The Coinage of the Reign of Julian the Philosopher.” NC 10: 238–50. Webb, R. 2003. “Praise and Persuasion: Argumentation and Audience Response in Epideictic Oratory.” In E. Jeffreys, ed., Rhetoric in Byzantium, 127–36. Oxford. Weisweiler, J. 2009. “Christianity in War: Ammianus on Power and Religion in Constantius’ Persian War.” In A. Cain and N. Lenski, eds., The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, 383–96. Farnham. Whitby, M. 1999. “Images of Constantius.” In J. W. Drijvers and D. Hunt, eds., The Late Roman World and Its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, 77–88. New York. Wiemer, H-U. 1995. Libanios und Julian: Studien zum Verhältnis von Rhetorik und Politik im vierten Jahrhundert n. Chr. Munich. . 1996. “ ‘Das Mißgeschick des Nilus’: Zeit und Umstände von Julians offenem Brief gegen den römischen Senator Nilus Dionysius (Ep. 82 Bidez = 50 Wright = 59 Hertlein).” Klio 78: 192–97. . 1998. “Ein Kaiser verspottet sich selbst: Literarische Form und historische Bedeutung von Kaiser Julians ‘Misopogon.’ ” In P. Kneissl and V. Losemann, eds., Imperium Romanum: Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption, 733–55. Stuttgart. . 2020. “Revival and Reform: The Religious Policy of Julian.” In S. Rebenich and H-U. Wiemer, eds., A Companion to Julian the Apostate, 207–44. Leiden. Wienand, J. 2012a. Der Kaiser als Sieger: Metamorphosen triumphaler Herrschaft unter Constantin I. Berlin.

Works Cited    273 . 2012b. “The Making of an Imperial Dynasty: Optatian’s Carmina Figurata and the Development of the Constantinian Domus Divina (317–326 AD).” GIF 3: 225–65. . 2016. “The Law’s Avenger: Emperor Julian in Constantinople.” In H. Börm, M. Mattheis, and J. Wienand, eds., Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome: Contexts of Disintegration and Reintegration, 347–66. Stuttgart. Williams, M. F. “Four Mutinies: Tacitus Annals 1.16–30; 1.31–49 and Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae 20.4.9–20.5.7; 24.3.1–8.” Phoenix 51: 44–74. Williams, S. 1985. Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. New York. Wintjes, J. 2018. “Die unbekannte Metropole—Antiochien und die römische Armee.” In S.-P. Bergjan and S. Elm, eds., Antioch II: The Many Faces of Antioch; Intellectual Exchange and Religious Diversity, CE 350–450, 75–102. Tübingen. Wiseman, T. P. 1979. Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. Leicester. Woodman, A. J. 1984. Velleius Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94–131). Cambridge. . 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies. London/Sydney. Woods, D. 2000. “Julian, Gallienus, and the Solar Bull.” AJN 12: 157–69. Woudhuysen, G. 2018. “Uncovering Constans’ Image.” In D. W. P. Burgersdijk and A. J. Ross, eds., Imagining Emperors in the Later Roman Empire, 158–82. Leiden. Wright, W. C., ed. 1913, 1923. The Works of the Emperor Julian. 3 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass. Yavetz, Z. 1969. Plebs and Princeps. Oxford.

In dex

Ablabius, Flavius, 141 adlocutio, 120–26 aduentus, imperial ceremony, 68, 81, 82n110, 85n131 Alamanni, 34n21, 111 Alethius, Latinus Alcimus, 149n16 Alexander of Heliopolis, 206–7 Alexandria, 188–89, 209, 250 Anastasius, 18n85 Antioch: bouleuterion of, 196; food shortage at in 362–63, 217, 219–20; disapproval of Julian, 213–15; impact on from Julian’s departure, 220–21; Julian’s criticisms on, 215, 217–18; tensions with emperors, 210; Tetrapylon of the Elephants at, 207–8, chapter 5 passim, appendix D Apollinaris, Sidonius, 18 apologia, 35n27, 90, 105, 123, 125, 126, 127, 131, 205 apparitores, 14, 34, 48, 127 Aquileia, 60, 61, 128, 154 arbitrium, 117n81 Argentoratum (Strasbourg), battle of, 88, 90, 92–93, 112n48, 122, 123n120, 138 Athens: dear to Julian, 128; Julian’s epistle to, 126–43 Augustus, Caesar, 16, 93n180, 131, 140, 178, 188, 208 Aurelius, Marcus, 90n165, 104, 115n70, 207, 249 aurum coronarium, 80

aurum oblaticium, 80 Ausonius, 153n39, 154, 162 Barnes, T. D., 166n138 Bidez, Joseph, 184, 191, 204, 246 Bleckmann, Bruno, 119n91 Blockley, R. C., 163 Bostra, 189–90 Bowersock, G. W., 3n15, 89n153, 140n229, 143 Brown, Peter, 32 Brunt, P. A., 226 Caesar, Julius, 12n61, 71, 122–23 Caesarea (Cappadocia), 212, 221 Caracalla, 250 Cato the Younger, 218 Celsus, governor of Cilicia, 193 Chalcedon, Julian’s military court at, 97n212, 151n32, 158, 166, 170 Chenault, Robert, 162n109 Christians: and Julian, 78, 96, 176, 184, 189–90, 194 ciuilis princeps, 164 ciuilitas, 52, 148, 156, 163–64, 167, 171, 175 clarissimus, 36 Claudian, 17–18 Claudius, 188 Claudius II Gothicus, 91, 95, 100n233, 234 comitia centuriata, 162

275

276      Index Commodus, 90n165, 249 consensus militum, 115n66 Constans, 30, 34n22, 60, 162, 163 Constantine: control of the West, 21, 152; and Crispus, 136n195; epistle of to Eastern subjects, 190–91; in Eusebius’ VC, 120n97; as exemplum for Constantius II, 51; and Galerius, 119; and Mars Propugnator, 121n104; and panegyric, 21, 86n137, 107–8, 111n37, 115n68, 118n89, 119, 146–47, 160n91, 169, 171n170, 175; propaganda of against Maxentius and Licinius, 129–30, 131, 145; reorganization of the East, 152n36; response of to Hispellum, 190, 208; response of to Orcistus, 208 Constantinople: and Constantius II, 57, 133, 136n193; and festivals of the Septimontia and Helios, 177–78; Julian’s building program in, 158, 177; Julian’s success there in 362, 185, 216; and Rome in Themistius’ Or. 3, 36n34, 81–83, chapter 4 passim Constantius I, 116, 132 Constantius II: as Agamemnon, 92–94; apotheosis of, 167, 195; assumption of credit for Julian’s victory at Argentoratum, 92–93; and challenge to position, 44; and control of African grain supply against Julian, 159n85; and Demegoria Constantii, 35–37, 38–39; and dyarchy, 48, 65; friends (philoi) of, 39n56, 61–62, 133, 141, 247; funeral of in Constantinople, 152; and humanitas, 40n58, 40n62; and Magnentius, 30, 60–61, 145; military record of against Persia, 29, 29n2, 43, 58–60, 135, 139n220; paideia of, 31, 35, 37–38, 39n52, 41, 42, 45–46, 47, 52–53, 85, 86, 164n122; philanthropia of, 39, 40, 43, 54–55, 75, 134; as a philosopher in panegyric, 35, 39–40, 45, 46, 47, 87, 164n128; political insecurity of vis-à-vis Gallus and Julian, 109–10, 136n193, 138n210; political motive of in issuing redeployment orders to Julian’s troops, 117n86; promotions of Gallus and Julian, 34, 99; reasons of for visiting Rome in 357, 79–80; use of oratory to depose Vetranio, 30–31, 42, 52–53, 86; and veiled criticism of in Julian’s Or. 1, 50–51, 52–53, 56–57, 59–61; and veiled criticism of in Julian’s Or. 2 on Eusebia, 73; and veiled criticism of in Julian’s Or. 3, 92–94, 100–101; and virtues of in Themistius’ Or. 1, 40, 43; and virtues of in Julian’s Or. 1, 54–56, 61; and virtues of in Julian’s Or. 2 on Eusebia, 74–75, 76; and virtues of in Themistius’ Or. 3, 85–86;

written instructions of to Julian as Caesar, 99, 138. See also Julian; Themistius Constantius, Julius, father of Julian, 136, 198 Corinth, 128–29 Crassus, L. Licinius, 161, 162 Crispus Caesar, 52, 136n195 damnatio memoriae, 62, 136, 169n162 Dalmatius Caesar, 133, 169n162 Diocletian, 48, 57–58, 93, 94n193, 118, 250–51, 252 Dion of Prusa (Dio Chrysostom): influence on Julian in Or. 3, 98; possible influence on Julian’s epistle to the Alexandrians, 188n11; probable influence on Julian’s Misopogon, 214n211 Edessa, 189–90 emperor: charisma of, 8–9; and consensus, 6, 9, 61, 83–84, 85–86, chapter 4 passim; divinity of, 81, 167, 174–75, 176, 194n49; legitimacy of, 21, 31, 43–44, 103, 107–8, 109–12, 122, 137, 142; moral qualifications/virtues of, 46, 54, 137, 160, 164, 198, 199; nature of office of, 11; petitions to, 7–8; position of, 44, 56; relationships of, 11; responsiveness of, 9, 20, 21, 84, 98. See also adlocutio; aduentus; apologia; arbitrium; Constantine; Constantius II; Government; Julian; panegyric; Themistius Errington, R. M., 9–10 Eusebia: as dispenser of favor in Julian’s Or. 2, 68, 77; as intermediary between Constantius and Julian, 70, 75–76, 77, 78; as Penelope, 78–79; as possibly not hostile to traditional cult, 78; virtues of, 74–75, 79, chapter 2 passim. See also Constantius II; Julian Eusebius of Caesarea, 104, 120, 191, 208 Eutherius, Julian’s praepositus sacri cubiculi, 123 Eutropius, 31n11, 34n22, 104, 114–15, 119n93, 133n176, 157 exempla, 51, 57, 58n197, 60, 65, 92, 93–94, 109n28, 116, 161, 218 Fausta, 51–52 Finley, M. I., 225 Florentius, Flavius, praetorian prefect of Gaul, 69, 99, 115, 117, 140, 141 Fortuna, 174 Gabinius, Aulus, 162 Galerius, 57–58, 116, 119, 120n96 Gallienus, 172n176

Index    277 Gallus Caesar, 16n80, 34, 47, 48, 62, 73, 135–37, 176, 251–52 George of Cappadocia, bishop, 188 Germanicus Caesar, 110, 111, 112, 115n68, 116 Gibbon, Edward, 155 government: communicative actions of, 1, 5–6, 44, 49, 80, 82; and honor, 18–19, 20, 70. See also Claudius Mamertinus; Constantine; Constantius II; emperor; Julian; Libanius; panegyric; Themistius Gratian, 162, 184 Gregory of Nazianzus, 3–4, 131 Hadrian, 71, 120n101, 188n9, 221n268, 249–50 Hebdomon, 177 Helios, 96, 172n176, 175, 178, 180, 194 Herodian, 104, 250 Hierapolis (Manbij), 206, 220 Hilary of Poitiers, 17 Himerius, 147; fragmentary panegyric of to Constantius, 176; on Julian’s euergetism in Constantinople, 176–79; on Julian as new founder of Constantinople, 177–78; and relating new policy, 178–81; use of neutral religious language, 180. See also Claudius Mamertinus; Julian; panegyric Honoratus, urban prefect of Constantinople, 176n202, 178 Hopkins, Keith, xiii, 8, 236 Jovian, 10n50, 31n13, 164n128, 252 Julian: as Achilles, 89–90, 92, 196; advertised as Constantius’ heir on coinage, 111n36; advice to Constantius in Or. 3, 93; and agents behind acclamation at Paris, 113, 113n54; as apparitor of Constantius, 48; and appellatio ad Caesarem, 163n116, 219; benefactor of Antioch in Misopogon, 219; born in Constantinople, 88, 149, 161; birthday of, 34n22; building program at Constantinople, 158, 176–79; and Christianity, 78, 96, 176, 184, 189–90, 194; control of the mint at Thessalonica, 129; coinage of, 148n15, 171–74, 217; commentary on Argentoratum, 89–90; delivery and circulation of Or. 1, 49, 57; development of authority and power as Caesar, 99; distaste for the theater and the hippodrome, 214, 215; on dynastic legitimacy, 90–91; eccentricity of, 4n16; entry of into Constantinople in 361, 149; epigraphic tributes to, 156, 165, 203; epistle-edicts of, 22, 188–92, 209; Epistle to the Athenians of, 126–43, 198,

199; Epistle to Themistius of, 126n140; frater and fellow Augustus of Constantius, 167; as heir of Constantius, 48, 72, 103n1, 111, 119; hints of true religiosity in Or. 3, 95–96; hints of true religiosity in Epistle to the Athenians, 139n224, 175; hymns of to the gods, 181; imperium of, 34n22; independence of as a panegyrist, 51, 56, 58–59, 62; limitations as Caesar, 48; as a master of doublespeak, 53, 57, 73; and Menander Rhetor, 49; military achievements of as Caesar, 111–12; military court of at Chalcedon, 97n212, 151n32, 158, 166, 170; negotiations with Constantius in 360/1, 119, 127n143, 135, 142; as Odysseus, 72–73, 210; origin of family, 215; overlooked in Themistius’ Or. 3, 87–88; personal ambitions of as Caesar, 65–66; as a philosopher in panegyric, 35, 39–40, 45, 48, 51, 53–54; “political manifesto” of as Caesar, 97–98, 131; as a politician, 184, 192, 201, 204; promotion to Caesar, 34; pronouncement of at Paris, 112–18; purpose of Or. 1, 49–50, 53–54; purpose of Or. 2 on Eusebia, 68–69; purpose of Or. 3, 94; purpose of Misopogon, 210–13, 215, 219–20, 222; received command of Roman forces in Gaul in 357, 88n153; reconciliation with the East, 151, 157–58, 161; recusatio imperii of, 72–73, 113, 115, 124–25, 134, 137, 140, 141; reduction of the number of palace attendants, 165; religious policy of as sole Augustus, 184, 190–92, 195, 200–204, 217; on role of rhetoric, 22; selfpresentation of as Caesar, 53–54, 71–73, 76–78, 79, 92–94, 95, 96–98; speeches (adlocutiones) of in Ammianus, 120–26; success in Constantinople in 362, 185, 216; as traditional emperor, 148, 159; use of neutral religious language in Or. 3, 96; use of “proof ” in panegyric, 51, 55, 74, 100–101; virtues of in the lead-up to his pronouncement in Ammianus, 118; virtues of in Epistle to the Athenians, 138, 139; virtues of in Mamertinus’ panegyric, 160, 164; virtues of in Misopogon, 218–19. See also Ammianus Marcellinus; Claudius Mamertinus; Constantius II; Dion of Prusa; emperor; Eusebia; Himerius; Libanius; panegyric; Themistius Julianus, Julius, 152n36, 189 Kaegi, W. E., 158 Lactantius, 1n1, 58n197, 119n93 Lendon, J. E., 18–19

278      Index Libanius: on Julian’s conversion, 194; on Julian’s legitimacy as sole Augustus, 195, 198; on Julian’s Persian campaign, 199, 200, 201–4; on Julian’s personal sacrificing, 183; on Julian’s religious policy, 194, 195, 202; letter to Julian after Argentoratum, 89–90; neutral religious language in Oration 12 on Julian, 201; Oration 13 on Julian, 193–96; Orations 15 and 16 of, 208, 211, 212, 222; panegyric on Constantius and Constans (Or. 59), 35, 50; panegyric on Gallus, 16n80; possible influence of Julian’s hymns on, 181; quasi-official source on Julian’s policies and priorities, 192, 193, 194, 195–96, 201–2; religious polemic of, 194, 197–98; undermining of Constantius’ memory via sunkrisis, 198–99, 200; on upheaval at Antioch under Diocletian, 250–51; virtues of Julian, 199, chapter 5 passim liberalitas, 44n85, 55, 159 libertas, 156–57, 162, 167 Licinius I, emperor, 21n98, 129 Lupicinus, magister equitum in Gaul, 112, 140, 141 MacCormack, Sabine, 5, 6n33 Macellum, imperial estate, 63n230, 136 Magnentius, 30, 60–61, 84, 145 Mamertinus, Claudius, 20, 105, 114, 118; criticism of civil life under Constantius, 162–63, 164–65; independence of, 155–56; limited confrontation of with Constantius’ appointees in his panegyric to Julian, 168–70; and neutral religious messaging and policy of Julian in early 362, 170–71, 174–76; offices and responsibilities of, 146, 154; purpose of panegyric to Julian, 146–47, 149–53, 161, 163, 168–70; republican rhetoric of, 161–63; selfpromotion of, 153–55, 161–62, 166; spokesman for Julian, 155, 175; and Themistius, 149, 153, 155; use of frater to describe Julian in relation to Constantius, 167; use of panegyric to announce new imperial policy, 163; use of “proof ” in panegyric, 156, chapter 4 passim. See also Julian Marcellinus, Ammianus: audience of, 125; both historian and rhetorician, 106; on elite in Rome, 164n123; on Julian’s epistle to the Alexandrians, 188; on Julian’s excessive religious zeal, 183; on Julian’s pronouncement at Paris, 109–20; and Julian’s speeches (adlocutiones), 120–26; and laudatiua materia, 108–9; Tacitus’ influence on, 110n30; view of

imperial legitimacy, 143–44, 232–33, chapter 3 passim. See also aduentus; apologia; arbitrium; Constantius II; Julian Marcellus, magister equitum in Gaul, 68, 69, 77, 99 Maxentius, 83, 131, 145, 169 Maximian, 107, 118n89, 160n91, 171n170 Maximinus Daza, 208 Maximus, urban prefect of Rome, 159–60 Millar, Fergus, 7–9, 236 Naissus, 126 Nevitta, Flavius, 151, 156, 166 Nilus Dionysius, 207, 210 Odysseus, 72–73, 210 Optatianus Porphyrius, Publilius, 38, 151n31 Orfitus, Memmius Vitrasius, 85 Pacatus Drepanius, Latinius, 126n137, 162 paideia, 22, 31–32, 35–37, 42, 52–53, 74, 78, 85, 86, 146, 150, 151, 197, 213 paludamentum, 137, 173 panegyric: and announcement/explanation/ advancement of new imperial policy, 21n98, 163, 165–66, 170–71, 181–82, 191–204; audiences of, 11, 19, 70, 85, 98, 100, 171, 181, 198, 200, 201, 226, 237; circulation of, 5, 19, 59, 91, 246; criticism in, 50–51, chapters 1 and 2 passim; and an emperor’s responsiveness, 9, 20, 21, 84, 98, 164, 186; and expectations of Roman subjects, 12, 20, 21, 75, 148, 215, 227; and historiography, 104–5, chapter 3 passim; and honor, 18–19, 20, 70; by imperial governors, 193; and imperial legitimacy, 21, 23, 31, 43–44, 57, 107–8, 111n37, 112n45, 195, 198; as medium of political communication, 5–6, 20–21, 21n98, 40–41, 44, 49, 80–81, 82–84, 86, passim; methodology for reading, 11–14; and paraenesis, 212; and persuasion, 14, 15, 51, 55n180, 100; and “restoration,” 157, 161; as speech of leave-taking, 216–17; typology of, 23, 23n102; on women, 70–71 panegyrist: as politician, 19–20; as semiindependent, 10n53, 14. See also Claudius Mamertinus; Himerius; Julian; Libanius; Themistius parrhesia, 10, 62, 64, 209, 210, 249–50 Petulantes, military unit in Paris, 113, 116n74 pietas, 160, 171, 197 Plato, 47, 98, 213

Index    279 Pliny the Younger, 37, 41, 86, 147, 149, 154n46, 155n55, 166–67 Pompeianus, Tiberius Claudius, 90n165 Praetextatus, Vettius Agorius, 151 Procopius, 8n42, 113n58, 120n101, 143, 232–33 recusatio imperii, 73, 108, 110–11, 115, 137, 140, 141, 195, 214 Rees, Roger, 161n94 religio, 197, 201, 203 renuntiatio amicitiae, 210 rhetoric: and historiography, 105–6 Rome: and Altar of Victory, 184; and Constantinople in Themistius’ Or. 3, 36n34, 81–83, 84; importance of in West, 82; Julian’s epistle to during civil war, 126–28, 134n180; in Julian’s Or. 1, 52, 82; Julian’s resolution of a food shortage in, 159–60 Rufinus, Vulcacius, 53n156, 159n84 Sabbah, Guy, 120 Sallustius, Flavius, 150, 165n128 Secundus Salutius, Saturninius, 150n27 Senate of Constantinople, 35–36, 36n34, 37, 39, 45, 81, 126n140, 149–50, 151–52, 154, 168–69, 216, 240–41. See also Constantinople Senate of Rome, 36n34, 82–84, 85–86, 100, 126, 128n149, 134n180. See also Rome Seneca, De clementia of, 16 Severus, Septimius, 161n99, 212, 222, 249 Severus Alexander, 250 Silvanus, 87, 100, 141 Sintula, Gintonius, tribunus stabuli in Gaul, 140 Sirmium, 30, 126, 162, 176 Socrates, philosopher, 39n52, 39n53 Socrates Scholasticus, church historian, 211 soldiers: and elevation of Julian to Augustus, 113–16, 200; as propugnatores, 121n104. See also Ammianus Marcellinus; Julian speculum principis, 50, 98 suffragium, 166 sunkrisis, 60, 90, 92, 95, 167, 198

Syme, Ronald, 249 Symmachus, L. Aurelius Avianius, 85n132, 159n84, 162, 210 Symmachus, Q. Aurelius, 16n79, 82n111, 86n135, 162 Synesius of Cyrene, 10 Tarsus, 193, 211n182 Themistius: adlection of to the Senate of Constantinople, 35–36, 38–39; advising Constantius, 47; on the clemency of Constantius, 43, 43n82; on Constantius and Persia, 43; and Demegoria Constantii, 36–37; on Jovian and philosophy, 164n128; and message of paganChristian cooperation in Or. 1, 39; Oration 4 of, 79n94; and philanthropia, 39, 40; purpose of Or. 2, 45–48; purpose of Or. 3, 80–81, 153; self-professed independence of, 41, 84–85; silence of on Julian in Or. 3, 87–88; as “spin doctor,” 9–10 Themistocles, 61, 135 Theodosius I, 118n89, 125, 183, 252 Thessalonica, 75, 129 Tiberius, 110, 111, 112 traditional cult, 39, 60n215, 78, 81, 99, 139–40, 175, 183–84, 190–92, 195, 202–3 Trajan, 9, 37, 41, 86, 149, 156n65, 157, 159, 166–67 Tyche, 197 Ursulus, 151n32, 158 Usurpers, 103, 103n1, 114, 119, 133, 145. See also Magnentius; Procopius; Silvanus; Vetranio Valens, 8n42, 38, 184, 252 Valentinian I, 162, 184 Valentinian II, 107n20 Varro, 177 Verus, Lucius, 250 Vetranio, 30, 52–53, 86 Victor, Sextus Aurelius, 31n11, 47, 116, 168 virtues. See Constantius II; emperor; Julian Virtus, 122, 122n109, 124n126, 129, 130, 172

Founded in 1893,

University of California Press publishes bold, progressive books and journals on topics in the arts, humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences—with a focus on social justice issues—that inspire thought and action among readers worldwide. The UC Press Foundation raises funds to uphold the press’s vital role as an independent, nonprofit publisher, and receives philanthropic support from a wide range of individuals and institutions—and from committed readers like you. To learn more, visit ucpress.edu/supportus.