Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius ed. by A. Omissi and A. J. Ross

Abstract

Reviewed by: Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius ed. by A. Omissi and A. J. Ross Richard Flower Omissi, A. and Ross, A. J. (edd.) 2020. Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius. Translated Texts for Historians, Contexts 3. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Pp. xi + 296. ISBN 978-1-78962-110-5. US$120.00. Few genres of literature are so intimately associated with Late Antiquity as imperial panegyric. With such a plethora of examples surviving from the late third century onwards, especially in comparison to the Principate, it used to be seen as a quintessentially late Roman phenomenon, an index of the empire's decline into the military autocracy of the Dominate. In recent decades, the re-evaluation of Late Antiquity has been accompanied by a corresponding rehabilitation of panegyric, with scholars such as Sabine MacCormack spearheading a new appreciation of its possible roles within delicate political communication and intricate court ceremonial. Many studies have focussed on a single author, such as Themistius or Libanius, or on the eleven late-antique speeches contained in the Gallic collection known as the Panegyrici Latini, but without always giving sufficient attention to their place within a wider literary context. This interesting and focused new volume, published as a Contexts supplement to the long-running Translated Texts for Historians series, has the stated aim of bringing different panegyrical texts into conversation, particularly by drawing together Latin and Greek material that might ordinarily be treated independently. The eleven contributors achieve this to varying degrees, with many important insights along the way. Laurent Pernot's opening contribution, entitled 'What is a "panegyric"?' (pp. 25–39), is not, as one might expect, an exploration of the genre of laudatory oratory, which had already been given some consideration in the editors' thoughtful introduction (pp. 1–22). Instead, Pernot surveys the history of the Greek term πανηγυρικός and its Latin transliteration panegyricus, tracing their development across antiquity. While this chapter is necessarily descriptive, it offers many important methodological observations, most notably that πανηγυρικός was frequently used simply to refer to anything (including an oration) associated with a festival and that many of the texts now labelled as 'panegyrics' were not known by that term in antiquity, thereby questioning the notion of a clear 'genre'. Roger Rees also ranges widely in his chapter '(Not) making faces: prosopopeia in Late Antique panegyric' (pp. 41–65). Starting with the recommendations for the use of this rhetorical figure in the Greek handbook by Menander Rhetor, Rees notes the relative dearth of examples in late-antique Greek orations. In contrast, the Latin tradition presents a mixed picture, with a trend towards greater use across the course of the Panegyrici Latini but no corresponding [End Page 326] enthusiasm for προσωποποιία in the late-fourth-century authors Symmachus and Ausonius, suggesting that the Gallic collection represents a 'relatively hermetic ecosystem' (p. 61). This nuanced account concludes with an important reminder to consider possible performance contexts, especially given Menander's observation that panegyrists used προσωποποιία 'as if in a play'. This text features even more prominently in Grammatiki Karla's chapter, 'Libanius' imperial speech to Constantius II and Constans (Or. 59): context, tradition, innovation' (pp. 67–90), which argues that this oration drew directly on Menander's instructions for the composition of a βασιλικός λόγος, even down to specific verbal borrowings. While some interesting similarities are highlighted, the argument would benefit from further close attention to the text(s) and greater consideration of how many of these features are to be found in other examples of late-antique panegyric. Belinda Washington provides an excellent, illuminating analysis of Julian's Oration 3, in praise of the empress Eusebia, examining how the future emperor adapted the conventions of imperial panegyric in order to praise a woman, 'Playing in conventions in Julian's Encomium to Eusebia: does gender make a difference?' (pp. 93–116). Discussing how the text forms a diptych with Oration 1, celebrating Eusebia's husband, Constantius II, Washington also employs frequent comparisons with Claudian's unfinished Laus Serenae, as well as placing Oration 3 within a wider context of representations of imperial women in panegyric and invective. The result is a well-argued account of how Julian created an innovative portrait of Eusebia...