Grammatiki Karla
Abstract
Libanius, a fourth-century AD orator, wrote speeches addressed to the Emperors Constantius and Constans, Julian and Theodosius. In these speeches myth and history are often employed as a rhetorical device. My analysis focuses on Libanius’ meta-rhetorical discourse on the distinction between myth and history (Or. 59) and on specific exempla, in which myth and history are accumulated. It examines how myth and history interlock in the exempla narrative, their function and impact. Particular attention is paid to the issue of whether myth and history, operating through an exemplum, simply work as figures of adornment (ornamenta) or essentially advance argumentation strategies; how they meet the intended audience’s expectations and what communicative function they serve.
Introduction
Libanius (fourth century AD) was a famous orator from Antioch, who has left behind him a substantial opus (orations, declamations, progymnasmata, epistulae). Ιn his declamations and progymnasmata, which were composed mainly for educational purposes, myth and history both constitute central themes. However, since these genres follow a specific model of presentation, which takes an event, be it mythical or historical, as given and beyond questioning, I consider that any research on the distinction between myth and history in work of Libanius is best conducted on the basis of his speeches.1 For methodological reasons, I shall limit myself to his imperial speeches.2
The aim of this chapter is to present the rhetorical function of the distinction between myth and history in Libanius’ imperial speeches and the goals it serves. I shall further attempt to demonstrate, through specific examples, that this distinction, already in existence since the classical time, is incorporated in rhetorical speeches (and more specifically imperial speeches, which flourish in the fourth century AD) as a kind of literary/rhetorical topos. The present chapter will be structured along two main axes: a theoretical one, based on Libanius’ meta-rhetorical discourse (Or. 59) and an applied one, centred on specific exempla, in which myth and history are accumulated.
Meta-rhetorical Discourse
The most extensive discussion of the distinction between myth and history is to be found in Libanius’ first imperial speech (Or. 59). The Basilikos of Libanius is addressed to both emperors, Constantius II and Constans, and is dated between AD 344 and 349.3
Of special interest for any consideration of the relationship between the myth and the history is the reference to the birth of the two emperors (Or. 59.23–29):
Μέλλων δὲ ἐπὶ τὰς εὐδαίμονας τῶν βασιλέων προβαίνειν γονὰς ἔννοιάν τινα λαμβάνω ποιητῶν τέ τινων καὶ τῶν ἐν ἱστορίαις ἀτόπων καὶ σκοπῶν εὑρίσκω μύθοις μὲν καὶ τερατείαις κεκοσμημένους τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν ᾀδομένους, λειπομένην δὲ ὅμως τὴν τῶν μύθων ἐξουσίαν τῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀληθείας. Κῦρον μὲν τοίνυν οἱ σεμνύνοντες ὄψιν ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις Ἀστυάγει γενέσθαι φασίν, ὡς ἐκ Μανδάνης τῆς ἐσομένης Κύρου μητρὸς ἀναβλαστήσειέ τε ἄμπελος καὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν ἅπασαν ἐπιλάβοι. ὑπὲρ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος αἰσχυνθέντες εἰ πατρὸς νομίζοιτο Φιλίππου, δράκοντα συγκατακλίνουσιν Ὀλυμπιάδι πρὸς ἔκπληξιν τῶν μειρακυλλίων τὴν συνουσίαν συμπλάσαντες.4
Now that I am about to proceed to the blessed birth of the emperors, I consider a notion from certain poets and those who record unusual events in their histories; and when I investigate I find that those who were celebrated in former times had their characters embroidered with stories (μύθοις) and wondrous events (τερατείαις), but that nevertheless the wealth of stories would fall short of the truth for these present characters. So, for instance, those who exalt Cyrus say that Astyages had a vision in his sleep, that a vine would spout forth from Mandane the future mother of Cyrus and would encompass all Asia. And those who feel it a disgrace for Alexander the Great, that he should be considered the son of Philip, make a snake bed down with Olympias and fabricate the union for the utter amazement of young boys.5
The way in which Libanius handles the literary topos of birth is rhetorically elaborate.6 At this point, he enters into an intertextual dialogue with the previous tradition (multiple references),7 in particular with Isocrates’ Panathenaicus (Or. 12.1) and Euagoras (Or. 9.21), as allusions with the same topos and the same vocabulary to these works demonstrate (Isoc. 12.1.1–3):
Νεώτερος μὲν ὢν προῃρούμην γράφειν τῶν λόγων οὐ τοὺς μυθώδεις οὐδὲ τοὺς τερατείας καὶ ψευδολογίας μεστούς …
When I was younger, I elected not to write the kind of discourse which deals with myths nor that which abounds in marvels and fictions.8
In Isocrates’ Euagoras again we find the disapproval of the oracles, dreams and portents which are connected with superhuman birth (Isoc. 9.21.3–6):
περὶ οὗ τὰς μὲν φήμας καὶ τὰς μαντείας καὶ τὰς ὄψεις τὰς ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις γενομένας, ἐξ ὧν μειζόνως ἂν φανείη γεγονὼς ἢ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον, αἱροῦμαι παραλιπεῖν.
I prefer to say nothing of the portents, the oracles, the visions appearing in sleep, from which the impression might be gained that he was of superhuman birth.9
The choice of the above passages, of the specific literary topoi from the two works of Isocrates is, in my view, far from accidental and has to do with the conscious classification of the imperial speech to the epideictic genre, alongside Isocrates’ Panathenaicus and Euagoras. Through this intertextual dialogue, Libanius attempts to integrate his own panegyric into the literary tradition of panegyrics and encomia of the fourth century BC and become part of this chain of transmission.
On the other hand, another hypo-text underlying the passage of Libanius is the Menandrian precepts on imperial speech. Menander suggests in his theoretical treatise the following (Men. Rhet. II.371.3–14):
οὐκοῦν ἔστω σοι μετὰ τὴν πατρίδα καὶ μετὰ τὸ γένος τρίτον κεφάλαιον τὸ περὶ τῆς γενέσεως, ὡς ἔφαμεν, <καὶ> εἴ τι σύμβολον γέγονε περὶ τὸν τόκον ἢ κατὰ γῆν ἢ κατ’ οὐρανὸν ἢ κατὰ θάλασσαν, [καὶ] ἀντεξέτασον τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ῥωμύλον καὶ Κῦρον καὶ τοιούτοις τισί. [τὰ] κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν [καὶ] γὰρ κἀκείνοις συνέβη τινὰ θαυμάσια, τῷ μὲν Κύρῳ τὰ τῆς μητρὸς ὀνείρατα, τῷ δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν λύκαιναν· κἂν μὲν ᾖ τι τοιοῦτον περὶ τὸν βασιλέα, ἐξέργασαι, ἐὰν δὲ οἷόν τε ᾖ καὶ πλάσαι καὶ ποιεῖν τοῦτο πιθανῶς, μὴ κατόκνει· δίδωσι γὰρ ἡ ὑπόθεσις διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀκούοντας ἀνάγκην ἔχειν ἀβασανίστως δέχεσθαι τὰ ἐγκώμια.
After country and family, then, let the third heading, as we have just said, be ‘birth’, and if any divine sign occurred at the time of his birth, either on land or in the heavens or on the sea, compare the circumstances with those of Romulus, Cyrus, and similar stories, since in these cases also there were miraculous happenings connected with their birth – the dream of Cyrus’ mother, the suckling of Romulus by the she-wolf. If there is anything like this in connection with the emperor, work it up; if it is possible to invent, and to do this convincingly, do not hesitate; the subject permits this, because the audience has no choice but to accept the encomium without examination.10
Libanius, in his Basilicus, openly enters into a dialogue with Menander’s theoretical model, and via the exempla creates a multiple reference, which will touch upon both poetry and history (especially Herodotus and perhaps Plutarch), in this time in order to disapprove his models.11
The orator characterizes the stories of the kind proposed by Menander Rhetor, which also appear in poets and historiographical texts, as inappropriate and untrue.12 He discusses in greater detail (in comparison to Menander) the story of Cyrus, obviously drawing on Herodotus. He refrains at this point from mentioning Romulus (he will make use of this example when discussing the raising of the emperors, Or. 59.30), but instead mentions another popular example, the birth of Alexander the Great (probably drawing on Plutarch, Pseudo-Callisthenes or some other source now lost). Libanius uses these examples in order to establish a contrast between myth and history, between these exempla considering as myth and the dignity that characterizes the line of descent of the two emperors (“so the generation of these surpasses every strange tale and has required only itself to provide its dignity”).13 And later he claims that “I shall refer to nothing merely for purposes of mythology by diverting my account to the obscure, but I shall state what everyone knows.”14 The connection of mythology with obscuritas in this passage, and its contradistinction to ‘common knowledge’ can be seen as expressing a relatively unusual view of myth and mythology.15 Ancient rhetoric is more prone to connect myth with sweetness (suavitas).16 Libanius embarks in a meta-literary evaluation, drawing a connection between mythology and the obscurity (obscuritas) of the speech. If one wanted to interpret this evaluation, one would say that the use of myth has, from a rhetorical point of view, a detrimental effect for a work (and especially for an encomium), since it gives the impression of distanciation from scientific research for truth and clarity.
Therefore, at this point Libanius, wishing to present his own panegyric speech as a true one, and attempting to bring the genre of the imperial speech (encomium, in his terms) closer to history/historiography, differentiates his practice from poetry and other fictional stories embedded in historiographical works. The tool of this differentiation is the contrast between myth and history.
Libanius goes on to describe the victories of their father, which coincided with the birth of the two emperors and are regarded as good portents. At the end of this section on the birth, all of this is aptly summed up with rhetorical questions by Libanius, who uses the technique of ring composition to do so (Or. 59.29.19–24):
συνελόντι δὲ εἰπεῖν, ἢ λογισμὸς ὑπὲρ ἅπασαν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ἐπὶ νοῦν ἤρχετο ἢ τὸ βουλευθὲν εἰς ἔργον ἤγετο. ταῦτα τίνος ἀμπέλου θαλλούσης ἐν ὀνείρασιν οὐκ ἀμείνω, τίνος ὀρνίθων πτήσεως οὐκ ἰσχυρότερα σημεῖα; τίνος δρακόντων φάσματος οὐκ ἀληθέστερα πρὸς πίστιν;
To put it concisely, either a reasoning surpassing all human nature was coming to his mind or the deliberation was being put into practice. Are not these things better than a vine flourishing in dreams, are they not surer signs than the flight of birds? Are they not more credible than a phenomenon of snakes?
In general, Libanius seems to put this contrast between myth and history to rhetorical use, in order to delimit his encomium, to free it from exaggerations and mythology and to provide verisimilitude. As has already been demonstrated,17 in this speech Libanius attempts to emulate Thucydides and to present his encomium as a genre related to historiography. Furthermore, if one considers the fact that Menander justifies the permission to use fictional stories with the phrase “because the audience has no choice but to accept the encomium without examination,” the rejection of this position on the part of Libanius perhaps signifies his respect towards his audience, the public of Nikomedeia, which is the recipient of his encomium.
The distinction between myth and history, fictional and true, and particularly the connection of mythical events with exaggeration and falsehood seem to constitute a rhetorical topos since the times of Isocrates (fourth century BC). This rhetorical topos can be followed along a diachronic pathway through the Hellenistic and Roman period (e.g. Polybius, Histories 12.24.5; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 4.47.2, 6.1.3; Strabo, Geographica 1.2.8.38–41, 11.5.3.1–2;18 Plutarch, Theseus 1.3.1), and even beyond, in Late Antique and Byzantine times. Its masterly use in the fourth century AD by Libanius and other authors (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 4.7.4; Gregory of Nyssa; Didymus, Commentarii in Job vol. 39, p. 1145; Eunapius, Fragmenta historica vol. 1, p. 259) seems to have given it a new life, so that it may continue to survive in a different context in Byzantium: in Christian literature, this topos is transformed, with the same ingredients, into a distinction between Greek myth and Christian truth already since the fourth century AD (see e.g. the works of Gregory of Nyssa)19 and its trajectory can be followed throughout Byzantine literature, well into Comnenian and Palaeologan times.
Accumulation of Myth and History in Libanius’ Exempla
Αlthough in the above discourse Libanius seems to be putting the distinction between myth and history to rhetorical use, in the exempla he uses in his speeches no such distinction is made, and the reference to historical and fictional events is often undifferentiated.20 In general, the exempla in imperial speeches can be distinguished in purely historical, purely mythical/mythological21 and in example where both historical and mythical/mythological events are presented together. In what follows I shall examine a few characteristic examples of the third category, from the viewpoint of their content, form and function.
In the monody on Julian (Or. 17)22 Libanius offers a list of mythical and historical persons who met with a death similar to Julian’s (17.32):
ἐδέξατο πληγὴν Ἀγαμέμνων, ἀλλὰ Μυκήνης βασιλεύς, Κϱεσφόντης, ἀλλὰ Μεσσήνης, Κόδϱος, ἀλλὰ χϱησμῷ πειθόμενος, Αἴας, ἀλλὰ μικϱόψυχος στϱατηγός, Ἀχιλλεύς, ἀλλ’ ἥττων ἀφϱοδισίων καὶ θυμοῦ καὶ ἄλλως ταϱαχώδης, Κῦϱος, ἀλλ’ ὄντων υἱέων, Καμβύσης, ἀλλὰ μαινόμενος. Ἀλέξανδρος ἔθνησκεν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐχθροῦ χειρί, καὶ ἅμα ἄνθρωπος δοὺς ἂν ἀφορμὴν κατηγόροις. ὁ δὲ ἐξ ἑσπέρας μέχρις ἀνίσχοντος ἡλίου κρατῶν, ψυχὴν δὲ ἔχων μεστὴν ἀρετῆς, νέος δὲ καὶ οὐκ ὢν πατὴρ ὑπ’ Ἀχαιμενίδου τινὸς κατενήνεκται.
The blow fell on Agamemnon, but he was king of Mycenae. Upon Cresphontes, but he was king of Messene. Upon Codrus, but he was acting in obedience to an oracle. Upon Ajax, but he was a weak-hearted general; and on Achilles, but he was ruled by love and anger, a turbulent character on the whole; and on Cyrus, but he had sons to succeed him, and on Cambyses, but he was mad. Alexander died, but by no enemy hand, and he was besides one who might have given grounds for criticism. Yet the emperor who ruled over all from west to the rising sun, whose soul was filled with virtue, still a young man and with no sons to follow him, he has been done away with by some Persian.23
This is a comparison ex minore (all these mythological or historical persons are lesser than Julian), where all exempla are given with a very short mention (just their names and the characteristics necessary for the establishment of the comparison).24 The manner of presentation is allusive, while the rhetorical function of the example is predominantly decorative, aiming to emphasize Julian’s superiority. His main differences with the personalities he is favourably compared to are the extent of his realm (from west to east), his virtuous soul and the fact that he died relatively young, at the hands of a Persian. Their common characteristic is that they all died a violent death. Ιt is important that apart from the smooth transition between myth and history, all examples come from Greek and Persian mythology/history.
Another case with mixed historical and mythological exempla occurs in the Epitaphios (Funeral Speech) for Julian (Or. 18).25 Towards the end of the speech, in a framed discourse, the orator assumes the role of Julian himself, addressing the audience with words of consolation. The discourse ends with exempla:
ἔτι τοίνυν μηδὲ τὸ ἐν πολέμῳ καὶ διὰ σιδήρου δεινὸν ὑμῖν δοκείτω. οὕτως ἀπῆλθε Λεωνίδας, οὕτως Ἐπαμινώνδας, οὕτω Σαρπηδών, οὕτω Μέμνων, οἱ τῶν θεῶν. εἰ δ’ ὁ χρόνος τῇ βραχύτητι λυπεῖ, φερέτω παραμυθίαν ὑμῖν Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Διός.26
Moreover, let it not it trouble you, either, that I died in war and by the steel. So did Leonidas and Epaminondas, so Sarpedon and Memnon, sons of the gods. If the shortness of the time allotted me causes you grief, then let Alexander, son of Zeus, afford you consolation.27
The figures mentioned are both historical (Leonidas, Epameinondas) and mythological (Sarpedon, Memnon), and the comparison ends with Alexander the Great, in whose person myth and history merge, since he is presented as son of Zeus. As Norman correctly observed, these lines are “rhetorical reminiscences of Julian’s death-bed address (cf. Amm. Marc. 25.3.15 ff.), but with an implied progression from the heroes of history to mythical heroes of divine origin, and thence to a combination of the two in Alexander. He, after being hailed as son of Zeus by the priest of Zeus Ammon in Egypt, allowed increased currency to the story (cf. Quint. Curt. 4.7.8).”28 The function of the exempla is argumentative. Libanius compares Julian to heroes and demi-gods in order to demonstrate how important for the world his reign was.29
Although the orator made a clear distinction between the literary genre of encomium on the one hand and poetry and its techniques on the other (see above), in the epilogue of his speech on Julian (An Address to the Emperor Julian as Consul, Or. 12) he reaches a rhetorical culmination by imitating Sappho, as he clearly states (Or. 12.99):
εἰ οὖν Σαπφὼ τὴν Λεσβίαν οὐδὲν ἐκώλυσεν εὔξασθαι νύκτα αὐτῇ γενέσθαι διπλασίαν, ἐξέστω κἀμοί τι παραπλήσιον αἰτῆσαι.
So, if nothing stopped Sappho of Lesbos from praying for her night to be made twice as long, let me too make a similar prayer30
and he adds a framed prayer (in poetic or rather dramatic mode) addressed to Time (Or. 12.99):
Χρόνε, πάτερ ἐνιαυτοῦ καὶ μηνῶν, ἔκτεινον ἡμῖν τουτὶ τὸ ἔτος ἐφ’ ὅσον οἷόν τε πλεῖστον, ὥσπερ ὅτε Ἡρακλῆς ἐσπείρετο, τὴν νύκτα ἐξέτεινας, καὶ δὴ καὶ ὅλως τῷ βασιλεῖ τὴν ζωὴν ὑπὲρ τὸν ὅρον τοῦ Σόλωνος ἕλκε σαυτοῦ νομίζων κόσμον ἀγαθοῦ βασιλέως γῆρας.
Chronos, father of the year and the months, extend this year for us as far as you can, as once you extended the night when Hercules was begotten. And moreover, take our emperor’s life beyond the limits Solon set, and think the old age of a good emperor to be a credit to yourself.31
He expresses the wish for the king’s longevity by calling upon two exempla: 1) the extension of the night which allowed the union of Zeus and Alcmene to lead to the conception and birth of Hercules32 and 2) The limits set by Solon (Herodotus 1.32) for human happiness. The quotation of the two examples is made very briefly, the aim being rhetorical amplification. Perhaps the setting of Time-Zeus (divine) side by side with Solon (mortal) and their contrast is not accidental. Furthermore, the reminiscence of the Herodotean novel on man’s blissful end at the epilogue of a speech wishing long life to the honoured addressee seems to also have an educational function for the audience.
Another telling instance is the quotation of examples in Libanius’ speech “To the Emperor Theodosius, for the temples” (Or. 30),33 used to strengthen his arguments in favour of the utility of sacrifices (Or. 30.31–32):34
Ἀγαμέμνονα δὲ τὸ πανταχοῦ τεθυκέναι πλέοντα ἐπ’ Ἴλιον αἰσχρῶς ἐπανήγαγεν ἢ νενικηκότα τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς αὐτῷ τὸ τέλος εὑρούσης; Ἡρακλέα δὲ τὸν πρὸ τούτου τὴν αὐτὴν καθελόντα πόλιν οὐ θυσίαις ἴσμεν τῶν θεῶν προσλαβόντα τὴν ῥοπήν; ἔτι τοίνυν λαμπρὸς μὲν ὁ Μαραθὼν οὐ διὰ τοὺς μυρίους μᾶλλον Ἀθηναίων ἢ διὰ τὸν Ἡρακλέα καὶ Πᾶνα, θεία δὲ ἡ Σαλαμὶς οὐ διὰ τὰς <τριακοσίας> τῶν Ἑλλήνων μᾶλλον ναῦς ἢ τοὺς ἐξ Ἐλευσῖνος συμμάχους, οἳ μετ’ ᾠδῆς τῆς αὑτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ναυμαχίαν ἧκον. μυρίους <δ’> ἄν τις ἔχοι λέγειν πολέμους τῇ τῶν θεῶν εὐνοίᾳ κυβερνηθέντας καί, νὴ Δία γε, καὶ εἰρήνης καὶ ἡσυχίας χρόνους.
Did Agamemnon’s far-flung sacrifices on his expedition to Troy ensure his return in disgrace or in triumph once Athena had devised the means to the end? Hercules before him sacked this same city, and do we not know that he gained the support of the gods by sacrifice? Moreover, the glory of Marathon is due not so much to the 10.000 Athenians as to Hercules and Pan, and the crowing mercy of Salamis not to the Greek fleet so much as to the helpers from Eleusis, who came to the battle to the accompaniment of their own sacred hymn. You could cite wars without number that have been directed by the favour of the gods, – yes, by Zeus, and times of peace and quiet, too.35
In these exempla, the conquest of Troy by Agamemnon and by Hercules, and the battles of Marathon and Salamins, i.e. the successful conclusion of two offensive and two defensive wars demonstrates the important role of the gods’ favour in the execution of difficult tasks or quests. The use of the exempla is purely argumentative and aims to defend the usefulness of pagan temples. “Libanius advances four arguments against the claim that the abolition of temples is beneficial: the rise of Rome, and other exempla from myth and classical history, show the efficacy of pagan religion.”36 The exempla are then enriched with a reference to Rome (33–34) and Alexandria (35–36). Their placement at the end of the arguments section, just before the epilogue, indicates the weight accorded to them by the orator for the effectiveness of his speech.
In conclusion, it would appear that the exempla in Libanius’ imperial speeches derive mainly from the Trojan cycle, from the history of the classical period (Athens, Sparta, Thebes), from Hellenistic times (Philip-Alexander) and reach as far as Rome and Alexandria. There are also a few instances of Persian kings, those mentioned in Greek historiographers. There is no distinction between mythological and historical examples, as both (myth and history) constitute a common base for the past, which in turn is common to both the orator and his implied audience. In general, Libanius in his speeches capitalizes on the flexibility and dynamic of mythological and historical exempla in order to achieve his aims. These aims vary, and may be literary, political, religious, educational or communicative.
Libanius seems to be employing in a masterly way, from a rhetorical point of view, the distinction or the merger between myth and history as a communicative tool. By building on the multi-functionality and the multiple communicative character of myth and history, he uses the past not only in order to provide moral teaching, but also in order to express his own approach to the solution of present crises.
Bibliography
Berry, D.H. and Heath, M. 1997. Oratory and Declamation. In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C. – A.D. 400, ed. Porter, E.E., 393–420. Leiden. a, b, c
Callu, J.P. 1987. Un Miroir des Princes: Le ‚Basilikos‘ libanien de 348. Gerión 5: 133–152. →
Dodgeon, M.H. (transl.) 1996. Libanius, Oratio LIX (Royal Discourse upon Constantius and Constans). In From Constantine to Julian. Pagan and Byzantine Views, A Source History, eds. Lieu, S. and Montserrat, D., 164–205. London. →
Felgentreu, F. 2004. Zur Datierung der 18. Rede des Libanios. Klio 86: 206–217. →
Foerster, R. 1903–1927. Libanii Opera. vols. 1–12. Leipzig (repr. Hildesheim 1963, 1985, 1998).
Karla, G. 2017. Die Macht des Exempels: Alexander der Grosse in den Reden des Libanios. Rhetorica 35: 137–160. a, b
Karla, G. 2020. Libanius’ Imperial Speech to Constantius II and Constans (Or. 59): Context, Tradition and Innovation. In Imperial Panegyric from Diocletian to Honorius, eds. Omissi, A. and Ross, A.J., 29–47. Liverpool. →
López Eire, A. 2003. El Mito, los Refranes y la Epistolografía: El ejemplo de las Cartas de Libanio. In Mitos en la literatura griega helenística e imperial, ed. López Férez, J.A., 261–298. Madrid. →
Malosse, P.-L. 2001. Enquête sur la date du discours 59 de Libanios. Antiquité Tardive 9: 297–306. →
Malosse, P.-L. 2003. Libanios. Discours LIX. Paris. →
Nesselrath, H.-G. 2012. Libanios: Zeuge einer schwindenden Welt. Stuttgart. →
Norman, A.F. 1969 (20033). Libanius, Selected Orations I. Cambridge, MA. a, b, c, d, e
Norman, A.F. 1977. Libanius, Selected Works II: Selected Orations. Cambridge, MA. →
Portmann, W. 2002. Rede für die Kaiser Constantius II und Constans (Or. 59). In Libanios. Kaiserreden, eds. Fatouros, G., Krischer, T., and Portmann, W., 19–120. Stuttgart. →
Ross, A.J. 2016. Libanius the Historian? Praise and the Presentation of the Past in Or. 59. GRBS 56: 293–320. a, b
Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G. 1981. Menander Rhetor. Oxford. →
Schouler, B. 1984. La tradition hellénique chez Libanios. 2 vols. Paris. →
Stenger, J. 2009. Hellenische Identität in der Spätantike. Pagane Autoren und ihr Unbehagen an der eigenen Zeit. Berlin. a, b
Thomas, R.F. 1999. Reading Virgil and his Texts. Studies in Intertextuality. Ann Arbor. →
Wiemer, H.-U. 1995. Libanios und Julian. Studien zum Verhältnis von Rhetorik und Politik im vierten Jahrhundert n.Chr. Munich. a, b
Wintjes, J. 2005. Das Leben des Libanios. Rahden. →
Notes
1
On myth in Libanius’ Letters, see López Eire (2003). On a broader scale, see the Preface to the present volume for a synopsis of the major landmarks in myth-history studies.
2
There are ten speeches to the emperors in the Libanian corpus: one dedicated to Costantius II and Constans (Or. 59), two to the emperor Julian (Or. 12, 13) and seven speeches dedicated to Theodosius (Or. 19, 20, 24, 30, 45, 49, 50).
3
On the date of this oration, see Callu (1987) 135–136; Portmann (2002) 22–43; Malosse (2001) 297–306; Malosse (2003) 7–11; Nesselrath (2012) 39. It was probably delivered in Nicomedia, although it was unlikely that the emperors were present. It was written at the request of an official of some kind, who commissioned Libanius to compose and deliver the piece.
4
Or. 59.23–24, ed. Malosse.
5
English translation of the Or. 59 by Dodgeon (1996) 164–205.
6
See Karla (2017) 140–144.
7
The term ‘multiple reference’ is developed by Thomas (1999) in the field of classical Latin literature and means “a practice that allows the poet to refer to a number of antecedents and thereby to subsume their versions, and the tradition along with them, into his own.”
8
Cf. σκοπῶν εὑρίσκω μύθοις μὲν καὶ τερατείαις κεκοσμημένους (Lib. 59.23.3–4).
9
Cf. Κῦρον μὲν τοίνυν οἱ σεμνύνοντες ὄψιν ἐν τοῖς ὕπνοις Ἀστυάγει γενέσθαι φασίν (Lib. 59.23.6–8).
10
English translation by Russell and Wilson (1981).
11
On this issue, see Karla (2020) 37–40.
12
On the relationship between encomium and historiography in Libanius, see Ross (2016). On the tradition of mythology in Libanius, see Schouler (1984) 746–760.
13
οὕτως ἡ τῶνδε γένεσις πάντα ὑπερβᾶσα λόγον ἀλλόκοτον αὑτῇ μόνῃ πρὸς σεμνότητα κέχρηται (Or. 59.25.16–18, ed. Malosse).
14
ἀνοίσω δὲ οὐδὲν εἰς μυθολογίαν εἰς ἀφανὲς ἀποφέρων τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ’ ἃ πάντες ἴσασιν ἐρῶ (Or. 59.26.24–25, ed. Malosse).
15
The relevant testimonies I have managed to locate are a passage by Vettius Valens (second century AD): Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν συνέταξα οὐ ποιητικῶς ὥς τινες ἢ ἐπακτικὴν ἀκρόασιν πράσσουσιν τῇ τῶν λόγων συνθήκῃ ἢ καὶ μέτρου ἁρμονίᾳ θέλγοντες τοὺς ἀκούοντας, μυθώδεις καὶ ἐπιπλάστους ἐπιφερόμενοι σκοτεινολογίας … (Anthologiarum Liber 6.9.20–21) and in the Etym. Magn.: Μῦθος σημαίνει δύο· τόν τε σκοτεινὸν λόγον, παρὰ τὸ μύω, τὸ καμμύω, τόν τε ἁπλῶς λόγον … (p. 593, ed. Gaisford).
16
Γλυκύτης δὲ γίνεται καθολικῶς τριχῇ, κατὰ γνώμην, κατὰ σχῆμα, κατὰ ἀπαγγελίαν. κατὰ μὲν γνώμην οὕτως, ὅταν τις ταῖς ἔξωθεν ἐπινοίαις χρῆται, οἷον ἐξ ἱστοριῶν καὶ παροιμιῶν καὶ μύθων (Aelius Aristeides, Ars Rhetorica 1.9.1).
17
Ross (2016).
18
Ἴδιον δέ τι συμβέβηκε τῷ λόγῳ [τῷ] περὶ τῶν Ἀμαζόνων· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλοι τὸ μυθῶδες καὶ τὸ ἱστορικὸν διωρισμένον ἔχουσι χοτὰ γὰρ παλαιὰ καὶ ψευδῆ καὶ τερατώδη μῦθοι καλοῦνται, ἡ δ’ ἱστορία βούλεται τἀληθές, ἄν τε παλαιὸν ἄν τε νέον, καὶ τὸ τερατῶδες ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἢ σπάνιον (Strabo 11.5.3.1–2).
19
τὸ δὲ λέγεσθαι παρὰ τῶν ὑπεναντίων τὰ μυθώδη πλάσματα καὶ τὰ ψευδῆ τερατεύματα παρὰ τῆς ἐπινοίας λογοποιεῖσθαι καὶ πλάσσεσθαι, οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἀντιλέγω (Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, vol. 2.1, p. 187). See also καὶ καθάπερ οἱ μῦθοι ἐκ διαφόρων συμπλέκοντες φύσεων τερατεύονται ζῷον καὶ σχήματα καὶ ὀνόματα ἱππελάφους καὶ τραγελάφους καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πλάσσοντές τε καὶ ὀνομάζοντες, οὕτως καὶ ὁ νέος μυθοποιὸς κατὰ τοὺς διδασκάλους αὐτοῦ τῆς ποιήσεως καταχλευάζει τὸ θεῖον μυστήριον (Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium, vol. 3.1, p. 214) as well Gregory of Nyssa, De perfectione Christiana ad Olympium monachum, vol. 8.1, p. 178; In Canticum canticorum (homiliae 15), vol. 6, p. 289.
20
See Arist., Rh. 1393a, 28–31 παραδειγμάτων δὲ εἴδη δύο · ἓν μὲν γάρ ἐστιν παραδείγματος εἶδος τὸ λέγειν πράγματα προγενομένα, ἓν δὲ τὸ αὐτὸν ποιεῖν. τούτου δὲ ἓν μὲν παραβολὴ ἓν δὲ λόγοι, οἷον οἱ Αἰσώπειοι καὶ Λιβυκοί.
21
It should be noted however that this distinction can only be made with reservations, on the part of modern research. Something which for a contemporary scholar is obviously mythical, may have been considered as a true historical event by the author and his fourth-century AD audience. A typical example is the Trojan War and the events narrated by the Iliad and the Odyssey.
22
This monody is dated to 364 AD according to Wiemer (1995) 247–255.
23
Transl. by Norman (1969).
24
The exemplum is discussed from a stylistic viewpoint in Karla (2017) 150–151.
25
The Epitaphios must be dated a few years after Julian’s death. On the date, see Felgentreu (2004); Wiemer (1995) 260–266; Wintjes (2005) 20 n. 24, gives an overview of the relevant bibliography.
26
Or. 18.297 (ed. Foerster).
27
Transl. by Norman (1969).
28
Norman (1969) 479.
29
Stenger (2009) 174–175.
30
Transl. by Norman (1969).
31
Transl. by Norman (1969).
32
Here Norman (96) adduces the reference to Plautus (Plautus Amph.) as a parallel.
33
The speech is dated to the second half of 380 AD; see the literature quoted in Berry and Heath (1997) 419, n. 51.
34
An analysis of the argumentation can be found in Berry and Heath (1997) 415–419. See also Stenger (2009) 377–390.
35
Transl. by Norman (1977).
36
Berry and Heath (1997) 418.