Jaques Schamp points out that, despite his numerous and significant works, the fourth-century orator Themistius is still little known among scholars of antiquity. Faced with this problem, he begins the present volume with an extensive commentary on Themistius. Even though the book under review is already the second on Themistius in the last two years, alongside Swain’s translation and commentary of the panegyrics on Valens (BMCR 2022.06.28), scholarship on the panegyrist, who was very famous in the 4th century AD, is still lacking. Schamp also points to the defectiveness of the only modern edition of all the speeches of Themistius by Downey/Norman[1] as a further justification for his edition and translation. Hansen[2], who contributed to the improvement of the texts through his emendations, described this edition as “desolate” (CDII). According to Schamp, a considerable improvement for all those who wish to work with the panegyrics of Themistius was the first translation of all the speeches into a modern foreign language by Maisano[3], who in turn adopted most of Hansen’s emendations.
The present work is the first of a total of three planned volumes. Schamp is thus carrying out a project that Balleriaux[4] had undertaken after retirement: to provide a new critical edition of all the panegyrics of Themistius along with the first complete French translation. The volumes are to be organised according to the respective emperors to whom the panegyrics were addressed. Thus, the first volume contains the speeches on Constantius II, Or.1-4, as well as the Demegoria, a letter of Constantine II to the Senate of Constantinople in which he appoints Themistius as senator. For the second volume, Schamp plans to edit and translate the speeches on Jovian and Valens, Or.5-13, and for the third those on Theodosius, Or.14-19. Since the German translation of the political speeches of Themistius by Portmann/Leppin[5] was published too early to take into account the insights from Maisano’s translation, one of the advantages of the present volume is that it was able to incorporate the improvements to the Greek text found in the Italian translation. Schamp also follows Maisano’s division of the text into numbered sections, although he makes further subdivisions to make it easier to find passages in the text with the help of the general index to be included in the third volume. In addition, Hardouin’s, Dindorf’s[6] and Downey’s divisions are provided in the margin of the Greek text for easy cross-referencing.
The primary intention of Schamp’s commentary is to facilitate the reader’s understanding of Themistius’s speeches by illuminating important political aspects and nuances of the texts (XI). To this end, he says, the volume provides numerous Greek and Latin texts taken from the various volumes of the Collection des Universités de France. The review of the edition and the translation themselves must be left to someone else; in the following, the introduction to the first volume will be examined, which itself comprises 513 pages.
The introduction is divided into six thematic subchapters. In the first short section, which serves as a preface (VII-XIV), Schamp describes Themistius as both an orator and an authentic philosopher, taking a stand against historians who believe that Themistius only described himself as a philosopher in his panegyrics for rhetorical effect. This view has since been disproven by Schramm[7], who in his book on friendship in Neoplatonism shows the consistency of thought in the panegyrics and the philosophy of Themistius. In this sense I have argued that the panegyrics on Valens should be understood as political philosophy.[8]
In the next part of the introduction, which Schamp marks as the first and titles “Rhetoric and Philosophy in Byzantium,” he attempts to give an overview of the philosophers and philosophical schools in Byzantium in the various epochs and phases of rule. To this end, he goes back to the 4th century BC and offers rich and detailed source materials. Schamp’s statements from the sections “Constantius II, Julian and the Others” and “The Life of Themistius” will be presented here as representative examples of his interpretation of Themistius’ speeches.
According to Schamp’s interpretation of a passage in Or.34, Themistius is alluding to Julian when he makes the accusation that the citizens had been deprived of their freedom (CCXXI). The relationship between Themistius and Julian is a recurring subject in ancient scholarship, and some assume that they must have had a good relationship, since both were non-Christians and saw themselves as philosophers. But consistent with his view that Themistius was both an orator and an authentic philosopher, Schamp concludes that Julian was not interested in Themistius because Julian adhered to the Neoplatonic philosophy that followed Iamblichus. Since Themistius’ philosophical understanding, on the other hand, did not harbour any sympathies for Iamblichus (CCXLVI), Schamp concludes in the next section “The Life of Themistius” that Themistius did not come into the focus of Julian’s attention, since there were so many differences between them (CCXXXVI). Schamp sees Themistius’ relationship with Libanius, who was completely different from him politically, religiously, and intellectually, in the same way.
In the same section, Schamp also examines a controversial passage in Or.7, the eulogy on Emperor Valens, retaining his view of the relationship between Themistius and Julian. Themistius speaks here of an earlier emperor who had been detrimental to philosophy and at the same time claimed to be the most philosophical of all emperors. He also describes him as having a beard. Leppin / Portmann find it difficult to identify this emperor with Julian.[9] Schamp, however, like Swain, thinks that Themistius is polemicising against Julian at this point. However, Schamp explains the distance between Themistius and Julian with the Persian campaign, which Julian undertook and which Themistius, as a pacifist, rejected. Schamp’s argumentation presupposes that Themistius was able to express his private opinion in a speech on the emperor. Although Schamp pointed out how little Themistius thought of Neoplatonic philosophy after Iamblichus and also described Constantius II’s persecution against the Neoplatonists (LVII), he does not connect this to the interpretation of this passage. This would have been a good opportunity to draw out the political consequences of Schamp’s assumption that Themistius was an authentic philosopher. This is all the more obvious since Emperor Valens also took action against the theurgic Neoplatonists and they were quickly accused of using magic.
The following sections of the introduction discuss the transmission of the manuscripts and the editions. Like the Downey/Norman edition, but to a much greater extent, Schamp has added numerous testimonia to the volume, which, together with their translation, fill more than 50 pages and which certainly represent a promising corpus of source material. The very detailed introduction concludes with a bibliography. The last third of the volume contains the new editions and translations of the first four speeches and the Demegoria. Each source is preceded by a short introduction, which is supplemented by comments in the footnotes.
All in all, this volume forms part of a commendable project seeking to re-edit all of Themistius’ political speeches. One major highlight of the volume is the abundance of sources that shed light on the political and philosophical context of the time.
Notes
[1] Themistii orationes quae supersunt recensuit H. Schenkl † opus consummavit Downey, G.et Norman, A. F., vol.I-III, (Leipzig: Teubner),1965-1974.
[2] Hansen, G. C., Rez. zur Edition von Downey, Gnomon 38 (1966), 662-666.
[3] Maisano, R., Temistio discorsi, Turin: UTET, 1995.
[4] Ballériaux, O. (†), Prolégomènes à une nouvelle édition critique des Discours de Thémistios, Revue d’histoire des textes 31 (2001), p. 1-59.
[5] Leppin, H. and Portmann, W., (Übersetzung, Einführung u. Erläuterung), Staatsreden. Themistios, (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 46), Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1998.
[6] Dindorf, W., Themistii orationes, Leipzig 1832 (ND 1961) mit Erläuterungen Harduins a. d. J. 1684.
[7] Schramm, M., Freundschaft im Neuplatonismus. Politisches Denken und Sozialphilosophie von Plotin bis Kaiser Julian, Berlin/Boston 2013.
[8] Mehr, S., Ganz Redner, ganz Philosoph – Themistios als Lobredner auf Valens. Ethik als göttliche Herrschaftslegitimation, Millennium Studies 104 (forthcoming).
[9] Leppin / Portmann (1998), 147.