Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective by Richard Flower (review)

Epideictic rhetoric and panegyric have enjoyed something of a renaissance of late, a trend growing from Jeffrey Walker’s Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity (2000), as well as Laurent Pernot’s Rhetoric in Antiquity (2005) and more recent Epideictic Rhetoric: Questioning the Stakes of Ancient Praise (2014). While these subjects have seen a surge of interest, invective, often derided as the crass opposite of panegyric, has more often been overlooked (excepting Thomas Conley’s Toward a Rhetoric of Insult). In Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective, Richard Flower makes a strong case for considering invective as an avenue for understanding the changing standards of public discourse in a newly Christian Rome and in a period often associated with rhetoric’s decline.

Flower’s argument is clearly articulated: for such Christians in late antiquity as Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Lucifer of Cagliari, new metrics of praise and blame developed through an evolving practice of epideictic composition and a desire to differentiate Christian rhetorical practice from its earlier pagan models. Analyzing rhetorical treatises, epistles, and other forms of evidence, Flower asserts these writers of late antiquity borrowed heavily from the classical forms of panegyric and invective, while simultaneously altering the topoi and exempla of the genres for their own purposes. These writers frequently targeted Emperor Constantius II, son of Constantine I, and Flower argues their invectives reveal the changing power dynamics of a newly Christian Rome, its rulers, and rhetorical practice of late antiquity. For Flower, invective is not simply public critique but a method of constructing literary personas that position the author as a pious opponent of heresy.

This redefinition of invective is explored in a methodical fashion, primarily through an analysis of rhetorical treatises and epistles. Chapter 1 details the genres of invective and panegyric, as well as their relationship to epideictic rhetoric and the progymnasmata. In this chapter, Flower argues for a more favorable assessment of epideictic rhetoric as a whole but specifically for a rehabilitation of invective, seeing it as an equally important aspect of imperial ceremonial life that defined the ideal qualities of emperors and the state. The chapter then explores the genres as they began to take on a Christian character. While some criteria and vocabulary evolved, the genre of invective remained within the precepts laid down in earlier handbooks and the progymnasmata. The author suggests that a prime criticism of panegyric, both among earlier practitioners and among the audiences that received it, is the lack of a distinct vocabulary for praise across the rules of emperors. Thus, the appeal of later Christian adaptations of invective lies in the ability to supply new metrics of praise and blame, accompanied by a new vocabulary based in Christian exempla. Invective, then, differs from panegyric primarily in its ability to communicate sincerity—composers of invectives have little to gain from their writings (in contrast to composers of panegyrics).

Chapter 2 focuses on how Christian modifications to epideictic discourse were deployed within the invectives directed at Constantius. Using Athanasius, Hilary, and Lucifer as models, Flower compares the exempla of earlier modes of epideictic rhetoric with the newer Christian modes. He argues that these changing exempla are evidence of shifting social standards for the behavior of Roman emperors. The exempla and topoi of pagan paideia did not disappear overnight; they persisted well into the fourth century and worked in concert with the newer modes. The topos of ancestry, for instance, was used to facilitate negative comparisons of Constantius to his father, Constantine I, thus emphasizing qualities the current emperor lacked. Flower concludes by noting that the Christian invectives of late antiquity did not do away with classical rhetoric’s genres or its forms; rather, they sought to transform them in light of a new system of imperial power dynamics. As Flower notes, “The result was a new rhetoric that was recognizably Roman and distinctly Christian” (29).

Chapter 3 shifts focus from the use of invective as a rhetorical attack and...