In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini. Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors (review)

In the collection of the twelve Latin Panegyrics pride of place went to the long oration by Pliny the Younger in 100 thanking Trajan for his consulship. The collection then included Pacatus’ panegyric at Rome in 389 congratulating Theodosius for his victory over the usurper Magnus Maximus, Mamertinus’ panegyric at Constantinople in 362 thanking Julian for his consulship, and Nazarius’ panegyric at Rome in 321 celebrating two of Constantine’s sons. Pacatus and Nazarius were certainly rhetoricians from Gaul and Mamertinus probably so too. The other eight panegyrics addressed or discussed Maximian, Constantius, and Constantine, the emperors resident in or near Gaul during the late third and early fourth century, and most were delivered at Trier. These connections were Gaul clearly imply that this “corpus is a product of the late Gallic schools of rhetoric” (7).

Despite their undeniable historical importance, in particular for understanding the Tetrarchy and the rise of Constantine, these panegyrics pose serious obstacles of interpretation. One problem has been the obscurity of many of their allusions to contemporary events; another has been their florid, sometimes almost succulent, Latin. Although the French translation and the discussions by E. Galletier have long been very helpful, the almost half-century since the publication of his Budé edition has coincided with a resounding boom in the study of late antiquity. This volume by C. E. V. Nixon and B. S. Rodgers now offers excellent new translations and very thorough notes that in one stroke magnificently cut though these problems and make the panegyrics immediately accessible and ready to be digested by historians and literary scholars. In their general introduction they already offer some fine suggestions about the historical value of the panegyrics. They argue, for instance, that because the authors of the later panegyrics (unlike Pliny) did not rewrite or amplify their orations after delivery, these panegyrics preserve favorable viewpoints of pagan emperors such as Maximian that the subsequent prominence of the Constantinian dynasty was unable to erase. They also dispute characterizations of the panegyrics either as formulaic set-pieces devoid of political significance or as instruments of official court propaganda. Instead, they stress the importance of the panegyrics for molding the attitudes of local notables and other possible recruits to imperial service. This notion of the prescriptive impact of the panegyrics is an idea that Nixon and Rodgers could certainly have elaborated, because the panegyrics equally shaped and influenced the behavior and thinking of emperors. In the face of the unrestrained and sometimes terrifying power of emperors deference became an effective strategy as orators, by carefully reminding emperors of their virtues, thereby implicitly constrained them to live up to those expectations.

Since the Tetrarchs, Constantine, Julian, and Theodosius were so important for the development of Christianity during the third and fourth centuries, church historians should also now take advantage of these translations and historical commentaries. One example of the importance of these panegyrics is in demonstrating that Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge in 312 acquired its definitive sheen in Christian mythology only gradually. In a panegyric delivered in 313 the orator claimed that a “god” and some “divine mind” had motivated Constantine to attack Rome (Pan. Lat. 12.2). The dedicatory inscription on the great triumphal arch completed at Rome in 315 credited Constantine’s success merely to the “impulse of a divinity.” A more explicitly Christian interpretation appeared almost simultaneously to challenge this studied blandness. Constantine himself insisted that the inscription that accompanied the colossal statue of himself at Rome attribute his success to “the sign of salvation,” that is, the cross. Within two or three years of the battle Lactantius recorded the story that Constantine had been advised in his sleep to mark his soldiers...