Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:36:05.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Libanius on Constantine again1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Pierre-Louis Malosse
Pierre-Louis Malosse
Affiliation:
Montpellier, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

H.-U. Wiemer opposes the image which Libanius gives of Constantine in his fifty-ninth oration (Panegyric of Constantius and Constans) to that which emerges from his later works, especially those of the Theodosian period when hostility is obvious, mirroring the opinion of pagan circles, who held this Emperor responsible for most of the calamities endured by the Empire in the fourth century. As the epideictic genre required, in 344/5 or in 348/9 the father had to be praised so that the sons could be praised too. However, Wiemer claims that ‘the panegyric of 344/5 already foreshadows the critical view’, by remaining silent about Christianity, the founding of Constantinople, and the tax policy on the one hand, and on the other hand by clearly declaring Constantine responsible for the war against Persia, which troubled the entire reign of Constantius. I wish to supplement these remarks with a few others and to suggest that the portrait of Constantine in Oration 59 presents us with a case of ‘disguised intention’—a rhetorical proceeding based on ὑποδήλωσις and παραψόγους: the orator tries to convey a message that is different from his apparent intentions, even opposite to them.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , December 1997 , pp. 519 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Wiemer, H.-U., ‘Libanius on Constantine’, CQ 44 (1994), 511–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Apart from Morel and Reiske's ancient editions, this text has been published only by Förster, R., Libanii opera (Leipzig, 1903–27), 4.201–96. I am preparing a new edition, with French translation and commentary.Google Scholar

4 Ammianus 21.10.8 quotes Julian who called Constantine novator turbatorque priscarum legum et moris antiquitus recepti. See also Heliogabalus's life in the Historia Augusta, as a dissimulated portrait of Constantine written by a pagan author in the Theodosian period, and the introduction to its French translation by A. Chastagnol (Paris, 1994), pp. CXXXIIf. and 499–500.

5 The date of this oration is controversial: I do not want to enter that debate now. See Wiemer's article (n. 2) and late studies of Callu, J.-P., ‘Un Miroir des princes: le “Basilikos” libanien de 348’, Gerion 5 (1987), 133–52Google Scholar and Portmann, W., ‘Die 59 Rede des Libanios und das Datum der Schlacht bei Singara’, Byzantion 82 (1982), 1–18.Google Scholar

6 See Schouler, B., ‘Le Deguisement de l'intention dans la rhetorique grecque’, KTEMA 11 (1986), 257–72Google Scholar, with bibliographical directions. See also Swearingen, C. J., Rhetoric and irony (Oxford, 1991);Google ScholarEbbesen, S., ‘Les Grecs et l'ambiguite’, L'Ambiguite, 5 etudes historiques reunies par I. Rosier (Lille, 1988).Google Scholar

7 ‘Insinuations’, ‘indirect reproaches’, Plato, Phaedrus 267A. See Schouler (n. 6), p. 259.

8 Or. 59.14–17.

9 He created two new taxes, the collatio lustralis and the collatio glebalis, seems to have transferred local custom fees and vectigalia from city to imperial finances, and to have increased the rate of indiction: see Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (London, 1964), p. 110Google Scholar and n. 73; Carrie, J. M., ‘Le riforme economiche da Aureliano a Costantino’, Storia di Roma (Torino, 1993), 3.308–11;Google Scholar Wiemer (n. 2) p. 520; Rémondon, R., La Crise de l'empire romain de Marc-Aurèle a Anastase (Paris, 1964), p. 147; and Seecks's articles in RE ‘collatio glebalis’ 4.365–7, ‘collatio lustralis’ 4.370–6. Moreover, the requirement that some taxes should be paid in gold (adaeratio) instead of the traditional payment in kind seems to have been ill-accepted, especially by lower middle-class taxpayers: see Zosimus 2.38.2–3.Google Scholar

10 Or. 59.17.

11 Four Caesars (Constantine II, Dalmatius, Constantius, Constans) and the ‘king’ Hannibalianus. Dalmatius was eliminated with diverse members of the imperial family in Constantinople in 337, then Hannibalianus in Caesarea. In 340, Constantine II was killed when attacking his young brother Constans' empire. Last, there were tensions between Constantius and Constans in 341 and 345–6 for religious matters (see Seeck, ‘Constans’, RE 4.1.948–52 and ‘Constantius’, RE 4.1.1044–94). Moreover, if Libanius praised Constantius-Chlorus's , he understood, by omission of the topos, that Constantine lacked in one of the most important virtues and one usually praised in panegyrics of emperors: see Pernot, L., La Rhéetorique de I'Eloge dans le monde gréeco-romain (Paris, 1993).Google Scholar

12 Schouler (n. 6), p. 265.

13 Or. 59.28.

14 Or. 59.29.

15 It is well known that Constantine spent a lot of money (foundation of Constantinople, gold coinage, church building, gifts to friends): Jones, LRE p. 109. Not only opponents (Zosimus 2.32, 38; Julian 10.36; Ammianus 16.8.12) but even panegyrists (Vita Constantini 4.29–31; Sozomenus, Hist. Ecc 33; Eusebius, Hist. Ecc 10.10; Julian 1.6) concede it. If he inherited Licinius's treasure, that treasure was certainly pretty soon spent, and he needed more money (see evidences for new taxes, n. 9).

16 Or. 59.156.

17 Libanius perhaps has in the mind the collatio glebalis, a surtax on senators (see n. 9). It seems, too, that some confiscated properties that had been given were taken back: see Vigorita, T. S., ‘Nuovi indirizzi di politica fiscale nella legislazione di Costantino’, Società romana e impero tardoantico (Roma, 1986), pp. 1.71–80.Google Scholar Does Libanius thinks also of the philosopher Sopater (the father of one of our sophist's friends), first exalted, next sentenced to death? See Eunapius 6.2; Lippold, ‘Sopatros’ RE 3.a. 1.1002–3; Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1992), pp. 99–100.1Google Scholar suppose that the reproach aims at a general process of alternation of kindnesses and confiscations, as summed up by Julian, Or. 10.36: , or by Jones, LRE p. 111: ‘extravagant expenditure and reckless fiscality’. Maybe Libanius thinks especially about confiscation of temples properties in 331 (and these confiscations coincided with the favours towards the Church—see ,Lancon, B., Le Monde romain tardif [Paris, 1992], p. 136;Google ScholarPiganiol, A., L'Empire Chretien [Paris 1947], p. 52;Google Scholar Libanius, Or. 30.6, 62.8; Sozomenes 1.8.10, 2.3—which implies some religious understatement inside the fiscal criticism), taxes on curiales (Libanius, Or. 49.2), venality of honours, as noted by Zosimus, 2.38.3. See also Giannelli, G. and Mazzarino, S., Trattato di Storia Romana (Roma, 1956), pp. 2.450–1.Google Scholar

18 See Schouler (n. 6) p. 266: this process is named by Pseudo-Dionysius and by Hermogenes.

19 Or. 89.34.

20 Constantine's elder son, born of Minervina, his first wife, or his concubine, he was made Caesar in 317, consul in 318, 321, and 324; he defeated Franks, Alamans and Licinius' fleet, superior in number: Nazarius, Pan. 17; Anonymus Valesianus 5.26–7; O. Seeck, ‘Crispus’, RE 4.2.1722–4; Demandt, A., Die Spätantike—Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284–565 n. Chr. (München, 1989), pp. 70–1; Jones, LRE, pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

21 In Pola (Istria), in 326. The motives for his execution are mysterious and gave rise to many interpretations (see Seeck [n. 20]): if Aurelius Victor, Caes. 41.11 and Orosius 7.26 confess their ignorance (but Orosius elsewhere, 7.28.23, attributes it to Crispus' supposed arianism), many authors (Eutropius 10.6.3, Sozomenes 1.5, Zonaras 13.2, Zosimus 2.29) saw a connection with the Empress Fausta's death some months later. Crispus might have committed adultery with Fausta, or he might have been falsely denounced by her, like Hippolytus by Phaedra—see P. Guthrie, ‘The Execution of Crispus’, Phoenix 20.325–31; Paschoud, F., ‘Z. 2.29 et la version paienne de la conversion de Constantin’, in Cinq Études sur Zosime (Paris, 1975), pp. 17–58;Google ScholarParker, H. M. D., A History of the Roman World AD. 138 to 337 (London, 1935, new edn 1958), p. 305 and p. 400n.Google Scholar Guthrie (see above) thinks that the murder was an application of Constantine's dynastic policy. However—and the important thing is not what really happened, but what in Libanius' time seemed to have happened—most authors (especially Julian 10.38; Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. 5.8.2; Eutropius 10.6.3) incriminate Constantine's nature: he was the persecutor of his own family (and this is one of the seven features of the figure of the Bad Emperor, of which Jerphagnon, L., Histoire de la Rome antique—Les armes et les mots [Paris, 1987, new edn 1994], p. 343, makes the inventory from Dio Cassius, Aurelius Victor, and Historia Augusta). In this context (Libanius speaks of relationship between father and sons), I think that the word is to be understood as envy towards his own family; see, however, Gibbon (ed. Bury, London, 1909), p. 2.221.4, who asserts that the main reason for the execution was literally jealousy.Google Scholar

22 Julian, Oration 1.7d.

23 Constantine had erased his name on the inscriptions: Seeck (n. 20), p. 1724.

24 In 314 and 324: see Vogt, J., ‘Streitfragen um Konstantin den GroBen’, Mitteil Arch Instit Rom Abt 58 (1943), 199–200;Google ScholarPetit, P., ‘Libanius et la Vita Constantini’, Historia 1 (1950), 562–82.Google Scholar

25 Or. 59.21.

26 P. Petit (n. 24), p. 568.

27 Piganiol, A., L'Empereur Constantin (Paris, 1932), p. 134Google Scholar. It is to be noticed that, as a justification for sending the two Caesars Constantius and Constans to the East for one and to the West for the other, Libanius says that the Emperor ‘wanted the Barbarians on either side to be curbed by fear of those he had sent against them; thus he undoubtedly would provide peace to the world, since the borders of the Empire would be strengthened’ (Or. 59.44). Yet it was not necessary for the speech to specify these motives of geopolitics (besides the sophist straight after gives a more appropriate reason for his topic: it is a matter, he explains, of giving the future emperors an experience of a state of war). Is this a case of disguised intention ? Indeed, Constantine has had noticeable successes over the Barbarians, but it is also to be pointed out that his military reformation was much criticized: the best troops were called back inland to build up the comitatenses, so that you could only find the ripenses along the borders, who were made up of auxiliaries and consequently much less reliable (see Berchem, D. Van, L'armée de Dioclétien et la réforme constantinienne [Paris, 1952]). What is more, the pagan authors condemned the introduction of Barbarians into the Empire and their rising to the highest ranks (Ammianus 1.20; Aurelius Victor 1.4). So, to say that Constantine reinforced the borders and terrified the Barbarians may seem suspicious (see also Julian, Or. 10.30: ). But the sophist, not very familiar with military matters (but he was able to find enough information for a very detailed narration of the Singara battle, §99–120), may not have had the necessary time to look back over the consequences which these new measures would eventually have.Google Scholar

28 There is a remarkable example of oblique reading: the philosopher Kojève's, A. book, L'Empereur Julien et son Art d'écrire (Paris, 1990), where the author tries to prove that Julian's loudly asserted paganism is to be read as atheistic propaganda.Google Scholar

29 Petit, P., Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioche, (Paris, 1955), p. 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 See Petit (n. 24), pp. 203f.

31 Libanius always refuses, as a point of honour, to praise a virtue when it does not exist at all, and, in that case, prefers to keep silent. So, he never praises Constantius and Constans acting for the sake of or cities. See the letter to his friend Anatolius which Schouler quotes in La Tradition hellenique chez Libanios (Lille/Paris, 1984), p. 938.

32 Quintilian 9.2.65–6, quoted by Schouler (n. 6).

33 Even if neither of the Emperors were present when, on some high official's request, Libanius recited his oration in Nicomedia, this panegyric was aimed to reach them. See the reasons given by Wiemer (n. 2).

34 So when laying stress on how much Constantine watched over young Constantius and Constans, how much he directed, inspected, tested them, and wanted their absolute obedience (Or. 59.36, 42, 44, 46), Libanius may have looked to them as sympathetic. Otherwise, when he means that Constantine, unlike his own father, has not been able to choose between his sons the most efficient for the throne, Libanius perhaps leads his reader to think that the most efficient was Constantius, his direct Lord—and history will acknowledge it. Therefore, Oration 59, if composed in 348/9, would have been the evidence for goodwill that granted to its author a return to Constantinople (see Libanius, Or. 1.72–4).