The biggest single corpus of Latin epideictic, known as the Panegyrici Latini, consists of twelve speeches (Mynors 1964). The earliest is Pliny’s PanegyricuS; the other eleven span one hundred years from 289 ce to Pacatus’ speech of 389 (MacCormack 1975, 1976; Gervas 1991; L’Huillier 1992; Nixon and Rodgers 1994). There is a cluster of nine speeches from the late third and early fourth centuries (Nixon 1983; Rees 2002); one speech to the emperor Julian in 362, and Pacatus’ to Theodosius. The only other Latin panegyrical speech to survive intact from the Roman empire is Ausonius’ gratiarum actio, delivered in thanks for Ausonius’ consulship to the emperor Gratian in 369 (Green 1991). Also from the late fourth century, substantial fragments of three panegyrics by Symmachus survive (Pabst 1989). Thirteen complete and three incomplete speeches, unevenly distributed over three centuries and originating across a huge geographical range from Gaul, Rome, and Constantinople, make a meager and difficult sample. The related questions of why the sixteen panegyrics survive (in fragments or complete), and how representative they are of what is lost, are central to appreciation of the history of the genre.
In the early empire it seems that most formal panegyrics were laudationes funebres or gratiarum actiones (for the consulship). The evidence of Fronto indicates that other occasions could feature too; he gave a gratiarum actio for his suffect consulship in the summer of 143 ce, but adds in the same letter that preserves this detail that he had often praised Hadrian in the senate, and that copies of those speeches were still held by everyone (Fronto, Ep. 2.1; Russell 1998: 44-5). Analysis of the circumstances of delivery of the fifteen Latin panegyrics from the late third and fourth centuries reveals a changed pattern. A gratiarum actio for the consulship would still be given (such as the speeches of Claudius Mamertinus in 362, Pan. Lat. 3[11], and Ausonius in 379); but anniversaries of imperial accession, imperial victories, imperial weddings, the birthday of Rome, and the birthday of the provincial host city, were all occasions warranting a panegyric (Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 4-5; Rees 2002: 17-19). The anonymous author of a speech delivered to Constantine and Maximian in 307 says that the emperors’ acts of generosity could be celebrated on multis occasionibus diversorum temporum (‘‘many celebrations of various occasions,’’ Pan. Lat. 7[6]1.2). By late antiquity, the city of Rome had lost its magnetic hold on the emperor, whose itineraries frequently took him to provincial capitals such as Trier, Milan, and Nicomedia. An elaborate reception would welcome his adventus (‘‘arrival’’) and would include the delivery of a panegyric (MacCormack 1972,1981; Rees 2002: 6-11). With such a range of occasions and places for the performance of panegyric, literally thousands must have been delivered; the survival rate is, therefore, very poor.
A combination of reasons can account for this. First, if its ambition is essentially display, once delivered, an epideictic speech has effectively fulfilled its purpose; only in exceptional circumstances will it have a post-performance afterlife. For provincial orators across the empire, it will have been enough to be seen and heard to deliver a panegyric, and the survival of the text would have been of little wider consequence. A second reason for the poor survival record is that few speeches would have been considered particularly accomplished anyway; although epideictic rhetoric flourished in late antiquity’s culture of heightened ceremonial, the ethics of panegyric remained suspect in the eyes of most critics, and not just Christians such as St Augustine. With court ceremonial’s increase in demand for panegyrics, most orators no doubt were forced into service, and trotted out the formulae of treatises and textbooks, with little in the way of sparkle, so again incentive would be lacking to publish the text. Looked at in this way, the question is not so much why so few survive, but why so many.
Like Pliny with his Panegyricus and Fronto with his speeches to Hadrian, it seems likely that Ausonius’ gratiarum actio and Symmachus’ panegyrical orations survive because their authors, eminent literati both, took pains to ensure they did. The authors of the other surviving Latin panegyrics are less well known, most in fact anonymous. Modern orthodoxy has it that Pacatus compiled the collection of twelve Panegyrici Latini (Pichon 1906b; Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 3-8). Pliny’s speech to Trajan is placed first in the manuscript, perhaps to be a model of panegyrical writing. The other eleven were all delivered in Gaul or by Gallic orators. Perhaps the collection was designed to be an anthology of Gallic Latinity, at once a demonstration of loyalty to the imperial center and, in its literary sophistication, a valuable resource for emulation and a token of Gaul’s complete acculturation (Woolf 1998: 1-7). It is quite possible, therefore, that the fifteen panegyrics from late antiquity are hardly a representative sample of the genre as it was practiced in the cycle of urban life throughout the empire.
If the names of many of the authors of the panegyrics are lost to us, it is still possible to discern in the speeches something of their personal circumstances (Nixon 1983). In incidental details usually given in the introductory chapters, the speeches reveal that the orators were not in active imperial service, such as the various administrative offices. Some worked in education as professors of rhetoric, for which Gaul enjoyed a good reputation. Such prosopographical asides would suggest that these men were not those best placed to function as imperial propagandists. Certainly the speeches can mirror the ideological content of media such as numismatic iconography and legends, and the speech of 310 includes our earliest attestation of the claim that the emperor Constantine was descended from the third century emperor Claudius Gothicus (Pan. Lat. 6[7]2.2). Clearly this orator must have had the emperor’s advance approval for the announcement. But to balance this identification of propagandistic content, some of the speeches in fact make a specific request of the emperor, such as for investment in a rebuilding program at Autun, by the same orator of 310 (6[7]22); taking on the role of civic petition, speeches like this stretch the function of panegyrical oratory beyond the purely epideictic or propa-gandistic. The element of flattery in these panegyrics is better understood as the most plausible means the orator could devise to secure his agenda than as evidence for central control over what was said (Rees 2002: 23-5).
The speeches do not match Pliny’s in length, and there is no evidence of a process of revision, so they may survive as originally delivered. Their relative brevity was perhaps dictated by the circumstances of delivery: an orator from 311 speaks of men sent from all cities on public duty, a detail which might suggest that the emperor was to hear several speeches that day (Pan. Lat. 5[8]2.1); in 297 an orator acknowledges his need to be mindful of the time since he was speaking Caesare stante (‘‘while the emperor is standing,’’ 8[4]4.4). The nine surviving speeches from 289 to 321 in particular tend to avoid elaborate digression; some are particularly tightly structured. The speech delivered to Maximian on April 21 in 289 ce in Trier is a case in point (10[2]). It is fourteen chapters long. It moves quickly from mention of Rome’s birthday (the ostensible reason for the speech) to an account of Maximian’s birth, early career, accession to the throne, and imperial successes to date (10[2]1-6); amplification is found in consideration of the empire’s state under Maximian’s rule and comparisons with figures from history, myth, and the gods (10[2]7-11); future successes are foreseen (10[2]12) before the orator neatly returns to references to Rome in the closing two chapters (10[2]13-14; Rees 2002: 27-67). The emperor’s virtues feature in the speech but are used selectively and unobtrusively.
A lack of rhetorical control certainly compromises some of the speeches, most notably those of Nazarius and Pacatus, who are both guilty of over-elaboration (4[10] and 2[12]); but others are lucid and careful in expression, and with figures and phrases from Pliny and Cicero, aim at a classical elegance. The Pro Lege Manilla., Pro Marcello, and Panegyricus were all used to a considerable extent (Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 14-19), but not slavishly, and nor do the speeches rigorously adhere to the structural recommendations of the late third century treatise, the Basilikos Logos of Menander Rhetor (Russell and Wilson 1981; Russell 1998: 45). Menander’s is the only treatise specifically dealing with imperial panegyric, so although it is in Greek and there is no evidence that it was consulted by the authors of the surviving Latin panegyrics, its late date makes it a useful point of reference in consideration of them (Vereeke 1975; Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 10-14). Amplification of the emperor’s good qualities is the basic recommendation (Men. Rhet. 368, 373), and comparison and narrative of actions are still core components (372-3, 377), but one distinctive feature ofthe BasilikosLogoswhich differentiates it from the treatises ofearlier antiquity is its willingness to merge genres. In particular, aspects associated with the prestige genres of historiography and epic are impressed on the orator as suitable for inclusion (Russell 1998: 49): Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon are cited as models for descriptions and narratives relating to the emperor’s military successes (Men. Rhet. 373); Homer’s grandiloquence can provide inspiration for the introduction (369) and for characterization (374). Menander also recommends what he identifies as the recent innovation of epic prosopopoeia in panegyric, giving examples from Homer (374).
This stylistic elevation of panegyric would suit the heightened ceremonial of delivery (Walker 2000), and the Latin speeches are rich in such flourishes. For example: springtime is apostrophized as blessed for heralding the accession of an emperor, in measured cola with poetic diction (Pan. Lat. 8[4]3.1; Rees 2002: 108-10); ecphrasis of a wallpainting embellishes an orator’s assertion of another emperor’s early election to office (7[6]6; MacCormack 1981: 270-1; Rees 2002: 169-71); the city of Rome is given voice, appealing to a retired emperor to take up office again (7[6]11.1-4; Maguinness 1933: 129-30; Russell 1998: 31-2); historic infinitives (usually associated with Latin historiography) are used to narrate the events surrounding an imperial adventus (11[3]10.5); poetic and prose intertexts feature too, in paraphrastic and quoted form, to further embellish the speeches (Nixon and Rodgers 1994: 16-19). Pliny’s penchant for epigrammatic concision is not much evident, but his and Cicero’s use of mannered and short clauses in catalogue was frequently emulated. Nazarius’ description of the good effects of Constantine’s victorious entry into Rome is an example of the combination of established rhetorical arrangement and poetic decor:
Duci sane omnibus videbantur subacta vitiorum agmina quae urbem graviter obsederant: scelus domitum, victa perfidia, diffidens sibi audacia et importunitas catenata. furor vinctus et cruenta crudelitas inani terrore frendebant; superbia atque arrogantia debella-tae, luxuries coercita et libido constricta nexu ferreo tenebantur. (Panegyrici Latini 4[10]31.3)
Certainly everybody thought that the train of vices which had blockaded the City grievously had been conquered: Crime was tamed, Treachery conquered, Impudence (which cannot trust itself) and Insolence in chains. Fettered Fury and bloody Cruelty gnashed their teeth without causing fright; Haughtiness and Arrogance were subdued, Luxury held back and Lust held tight in iron bonds.
The passage is clearly an indulgent amplification. Clauses, catalogued in asyndeton, are variously fully expressed and elliptical; nouns and participles are arranged in chiastic variations, sometimes enhanced with alliteration; ablatival pairs expand the imperfect verb forms; all such rhetorical effects had precursors in Cicero and Pliny and signal Nazarius’ debt to those prose models. Yet the passage has even greater flamboyance for its use of abstract nouns, further elevated in personification, in a Vergilian manner. Echoes of canonical passages from the Aeneid establish the frame of reference, and the figure is amplified in typical panegyrical manner (Rees 2004b: 42-3).
The evolution of Latin panegyric had seen it become mainstream, having been marginal. Originally classified by Romans as Greek, panegyric was to become a stamp of Roman imperial culture. In social function, rhetorical arrangement, and literary style, the Latin panegyrics of late antiquity had both continuities and breaks with the past. Nazarius could, at the same time, be both Ciceronian and Vergilian. Perhaps few orators in late antiquity were equally elaborate - given the surviving record, it is impossible to know. But we might guess that neither Cicero nor Vergil would have been terribly impressed that epic epideictic could now be flaunted as a hallmark of Romanitas.
FURTHER READING
The panegyrical speeches of Cicero, the younger Pliny, Fronto, and Ausonius appear with facing English translations in the Loeb series. For Cicero, Gotoff (1993a) enlightens the style of the Caesarian speeches; for the De Imperio MacDonald’s (1966) edition and commentary remains very accessible. Pliny’s Panegyricus is less well served, with Durry’s (1938) work in French still the standard commentary. For English translations of the Panegyrici Latini, together with introduction, Latin text, and historical commentary, see Nixon and Rodgers (1994). Galletier’s (1949-55) three-volume French translation and commentary has some sensitive observations. Symmachus’ speeches have been edited and translated into German by Pabst (1989). Green (1991) includes text and commentary for Ausonius’ gratiarum actio. Janson’s (1979) concordance is a useful resource for imperial panegyrics.
Latin panegyric is generally less well served in modern secondary literature than Greek, and much of what has been written is negative. Pliny’s Panegyricus has received a particularly hostile reception among modern scholars: see Fedeli (1989), in Italian, and Rees (2001). The general surveys of Roman rhetoric by Clarke (19963: 143-7) and Kennedy (1972: 543-6) devote a little space to panegyric. Although focusing on Greek, there are very useful overviews of aspects of Roman panegyric in Burgess (1987) and Pernot (1993), in French.
Most monographs and lengthy treatments of Roman panegyric have been published in languages other than English. The first, by Pichon (1906a), in French, was an attempt to situate late antique panegyric in its context within the empire; also in French, Burdeau (1964) considers the presentation in the later speeches of the emperor and L’Huillier (1992) uses lexical statistics as a basis for ideological and stylistic observations. Mause (1994), in German, considers kingship in a wide survey of Latin panegyrical literature. Lassandro (2000), in Italian, considers the image of the emperor in late antique oratory; D’Elia’s (1960-1) lengthy Italian article covers a wide range of aspects of two late panegyrics. The best book-length introduction to the Panegyrici Latini is Gervas (1991), in Spanish. In English, MacCormack (1975) remains a valuable introductory article; her later monograph is an illuminating discussion of the function of panegyric within the court ceremonial of late antiquity (MacCormack 1981). Rees (2002) considers the five speeches between 289 and 307 ce, relating each to its political context. The literary merits of Latin panegyric have rarely been heralded; an exception is Russell (1998), a collection which includes other articles on the genre.
This discussion has been limited to prose panegyric. There also developed a rich tradition of verse panegyric in Latin, employing a full range of rhetorical conceits. Statius and Claudian are the best known; the anonymous laus Messallae and laus Pisonis are rarely read. Texts and translations of all are available in the Loeb series.
A Companion to Roman Rhetoric Edited by William Dominik, Jon Hall Copyright © 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
World History
