Speeches in praise of emperors flourished as a genre in Late Antiquity, and Themistius (ca. 317-388) excelled at them. Through his mixture of traditional rhetoric and Platonic influences, the philosopher turned politician lent lustre and vigour to his encomia, apparently much appreciated by emperors. This third Budé volume of Themistius’ oratorical corpus contains six panegyric speeches that were given between 379 and 385, under the reign of Theodosius. With its appearance, Jacques Schamp’s edition of the so-called political orations is complete; two more volumes are planned to cover the ‘private’ orations.[1] The volume under review contains a historical introduction, a new critical Greek text alongside the first French translation of orations 14-19, and many notes.[2]
The introduction to this volume contains Schamp’s outline of the political history of the reign of Theodosius during Themistius’ lifetime, continuing the historical introductions of the first two volumes.[3] It starts off with a portrait of the emperor’s father Flavius Theodosius and a synthesis of available information on Theodosius’ life up until his appointment as emperor in the eastern Roman Empire by Gratian. Schamp then covers selected policies of Theodosius, primarily religious policy, external military policy (against Goths and Persians) and internal military policy (against the usurper Maximus) during Theodosius’ first years in power. The introduction follows the lines set out by Pierre Maraval’s biography of Theodosius,[4] complemented with extra literature on the period, which Schamp commands well. As in the preceding volumes, the author often cites ample excerpts from late-antique historians throughout the introduction.[5]
Every oration is preceded by a short Notice and a list of sigla for the cited manuscripts and editores et viri docti. These introductions contain a more or less detailed discussion of the speech’s date and circumstances, and a convenient short summary of its contents. Only the introduction to Or. 19 addresses the genre of the text in a separate (but very concise) paragraph, in which Schamp calls the oration a hymn. It seems to me, however, that Themistius uses this term (or. 19, 3, 1 [228b]) not to denote a specific genre in contrast to other orations, but synonymously with ἐγκώμιον.[6]
While I must leave the judgement on the literary qualities of Schamp’s French translation to native speakers, I considered the text very helpful in understanding the more cryptic passages of Themistius’ Greek. Schamp reflects Themistius’ rich vocabulary in his own tongue, but he does not stay too close to the original’s syntax, so as not to become unintelligible. The translation seems dubious in only a few cases: on p. 59 the γραμμάτιον is Themistius’ writing tablet, not his “petit texte”; p. 67 πρώτου is not “durant la première année”, but during the first cycle (of five years); p. 135 reads phrase for “phase” translating ῥῆμα; p. 137 γέμουσαν γήθους is full of joy, not “pleine de superbe”. The translation is accompanied by copious notes, of which the lion’s share (ca. 90 pages in smaller type) is placed at the end of the volume. They are of indispensable value for students of Themistius, whether they are interested in matters concering the constitution of the text, historical information contained in the speeches, allusions to classical and imperial literature or quotations from Themistius in later authors.
This edition’s Greek text is based upon Schamp’s own examination of the older manuscripts. It is the first critical edition to make use of Günther Christian Hansen’s many corrections to the 1965 Teubner edition which he criticized so severely,[7] and of the few other contributions to the history of Themistius’ text since then. The more recent conjectures, or textual problems signalled by previous translators are more regularly treated in the notes than older conjectures of, say, Gabriel Cobet or August Gasda, albeit not systematically. Schamp occasionally proposes new emendations, especially in the case of Homeric quotations. Three apparatuses accompany the Greek text. The first contains glosses or other materials found in the margins of the manuscripts. The second is an apparatus fontium, identifying quotations from or allusions to older literature. The use of “cf.” in order to distinguish between citations on the one hand and allusions or possible sources on the other hand is laudable but not always consistent. Why some allusions are mentioned in the French notes but not in the apparatus fontium is unclear. Might the remarkable iunctura γλυκεῖαν ἀνάγκην (p. 59 l. 9 = Or. 16, 2, 1 [200a]) be a hitherto unnoticed allusion to Bacchylides frg. 20B? The apparatus criticus is mostly helpful and provides the readings of the manuscripts used and often those of previous editions as well. Schamp accords less space to the readings of other editions when more manuscripts transmit a particular oration: for example, whereas the choices of Dindorf or Schenkl/Downey are reported for almost every variant in Or. 15, they are only very sparingly recorded in the apparatus to Or. 18. No explanation is provided for this choice.
One of this edition’s purported purposes is to improve upon the often-criticised Teubners.[8] A close comparison of the short Or. 17 (817 words) may shed some light on how Schamp sought to achieve his goal. It is immediately clear that the apparatus discharged some of the previous ballast: Downey[9] mentions 7 more conjectures not printed in the text and lists 3 more mistakes of the editio princeps, which is itself based on a copy of a manuscript that still exists today. Punctuation aside, there are three differences in the text proper. On p. 90 l. 5, Schamp for the first time restores the true reading of the manuscripts ἐκδηλότερον, where previous editors had believed to read εὐδηλότερον, which they corrected to ἐνδηλότερον.[10] Schamp also reinstates Harduin’s necessary correction Βίβουλος (misprinted as Βίβουλσς) of the MS reading Βίβος, which Downey inexplicably rejected (p. 92 l. 27). At p. 93 l. 29 Schamp opts for the manuscripts’ spelling γαννύμενος, while Downey followed Dindorf in normalising to γανύμενος. It is not clear why Schamp normalised to γεγανυμένος in Or. 13, 18, 2 (177a), but not now. The comparison also reveals some weaknesses of Schamp’s approach. One learns only from turning to Downey’s apparatus that ἔχωσι, adopted by Schamp, was first conjectured by Roulez,[11] whereas one would wrongly be led to assume from Schamp’s apparatus entry (“ἔχωσι edd.: ἔχουσι Α Π”, p. 92 ad l. 10) that it could be found already in Harduin’s edition. Furthermore, the apparatus fontium is missing for this oration, notwithstanding a clear allusion to Pl., R., 5, 473d at p. 91 l. 5-6 and an explicit quote from Plato at p. 93 l. 4-5 (in both cases pointed out in the French notes). The marginalia to p. 94 l. 6 are printed in the apparatus criticus instead of the dedicated apparatus. It is puzzling to find the reading of the manuscripts ἀπόδειξις, surely correct, again relayed to the apparatus in favour of ἀποδείξεις, notwithstanding Schamp’s confusing note.[12] Similarly, there is no reason why at p. 92 l. 21 the manuscript reading μερίτας should be changed into μεριστὰς, another misprint of the editio princeps that was taken over by subsequent editors.[13]
Unfortunately, these remarks illustrate a higher number of formal flaws than expected of an edition in the CUF-series. In the introduction, there are such misprints as Maimus for Maximus (p. lvi n. 147), μεταπεμccάμενος for μεταπεμψάμενος (p. xi n. 16), eins for eius (p. li n. 127), or Desmuliiez for Desmulliez (p. lxii n. 166). Similar misprints, faulty spacing, and brackets or guillemets without counterpart are legion in the complementary notes as well. A graver flaw is that problems with typography[14] and inconsistencies[15] extend to the belle page with the Greek text. An investment in more and more careful proofreading would have brought out the fruits of Schamp’s efforts even better.[16]
To sum up, scholars of Themistius will profit greatly from the treasure-grove of information constituted by the notes that accompany this edition. Here, Schamp’s magisterial learning shines the brightest. Readers will also benefit from the updated Greek text and accompanying apparatuses, but regrettably, they will have to use them with more caution than one might have hoped for. Thanks to Schamp’s clarifying translations, the French-speaking public can finally read this fascinating philosophical orator in their own tongue.
Bibliography
Cassin, M. (2024). [Review of Thémistios, Discours I – IV. Tome 1 : Les héritiers de Constantin, 2022, by O. Ballériaux & J. Schamp]. Revue des études byzantines, 82, 347–349.
Goeken, J. (2010). Hymne et panégyrique. Paideia, 65, 231–251.
Guichard, L. (2023). [Review of Thémistios, Discours I – IV. Tome 1 : Les héritiers de Constantin, 2022, by O. Ballériaux & J. Schamp]. Revue des études anciennes, 125(2), 606–611.
Hansen, G. C. (1966). [Review of Themistii orationes quae supersunt. Rec. H. Schenkl, opus consummavit G. Downey. Vol. 1., by H. Schenkl & G. Downey]. Gnomon, 38(7), 662–666.
Hansen, G. C. (1967). Nachlese zu Themistios. Philologus, 111(1), 110–118.
Heather, P. & Moncur, D. (Trans.). (2001). Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century. Select Orations of Themistius. Liverpool University Press.
Leppin, H. & Portmann, W. (Trans.). (1998). Themistios: Staatsreden. Hiersemann.
Maisano, R. (Ed./Trans.). (1995). Discorsi di Temistio. UTET.
Maraval, P. (2009). Théodose le Grand. Le pouvoir et la foi. Fayard.
Penella, R. J. (Trans.). (2000). The Private Orations of Themistius. University of California Press.
Ritoré Ponce, J. (Trans.). (2000). Temistio: Discursos políticos. Gredos.
Roulez, J. E. G. (1828). Observationes criticae in Themistii orationes [Dissertation]. Typis Francisci Michel.
Schamp, J. (2022). Introduction générale. In O. Ballériaux & J. Schamp (Eds./Trans.), Thémistios: Discours I – IV. Les héritiers de Constantin (pp. vii–dxiii). Les Belles Lettres.
Schamp, J. (Ed./Trans.). (2023). Thémistios: Discours V – XIII. Les empereurs illyrien et pannonien. Les Belles Lettres.
Schenkl, H. & Downey, G. (Eds.). (1965). Themistii Orationes quae supersunt (1). Teubner.
Notes
[1] The introduction to vol. 1 has been reviewed by Simone Mehr in BMCR 2024.01.36.
[2] Translations in other modern languages are available: German: Leppin & Portmann 1998; Italian: Maisano 1995; Spanish: Ritoré Ponce 2000. Or. 14-17 have been translated into English in Heather & Moncur 2001; for Or. 17 see also Penella 2000, 231-234.
[3] See Schamp 2022, cxlv-ccxxxvi for the reigns of Constantius II and Julian; Schamp 2023, 7-52 for Jovian and 73-232 for Valens.
[4] Maraval 2009.
[5] A rare slip of the pen needs correcting: on p. lxiii Schamp writes that Theodosius never set foot on the British Isles, only a few pages after having cited Zosimus’ testimony (4, 35, 3) that Maximus and Theodosius served together in the campaign in Britannia of the latter’s father (p. lvii).
[6] On the entanglement of hymn and encomium, see Goeken 2010.
[7] Hansen 1966; Hansen 1967. Already Maisano 1995 had incorporated some of these corrections in his (non-critical) text.
[8] Schamp 2022, cdi-cdii.
[9] Schenkl & Downey 1965, 305-309.
[10] I was able to check against an online digital reproduction of manuscript Π at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10038073k/ (accessed 03/03/2025); I could not consult the sole other manuscript that transmits this oration.
[11] Roulez 1828, 4.
[12] “On serait tenté d’écrire au singulier ἀπόδειξις, malgré les manuscrits et les éditeurs. On s’abstiendra toutefois.” (p. 194 n. 6). But the manuscripts have ἀπόδειξις!
[13] Themistius uses the word μερίτης with the same meaning in Or. 5, 11, 5 (71b) and Or. 34, 27.
[14] P. 35 l. 24: ἀλλλὰ; p. 59 l. 8: παραμε μένηκεν; p. 60 l. 16: κοινὴκαὶ; p. 76 l. 22: πολε-μίους; p. 106 l. 11: Ὥν; p. 134 l. 3: ῥαστώνη; p. 140 l. 10: Ὥ στε. Missing accentuation: p. 35 l. 30 read Ὧν; p. 60 l. 17 read εἰσεληλύθαμεν; p. 67 l. 15 read ἐστήριξε; p. 68 l. 21 read μετεληλύθαμεν. Greek punctuation marks · and ; are often preceded by a space, but not always. There are typographical problems with iota subscriptum on p. 31 l. 23 and p. 41 l. 14. A final sigma (ς) is often typeset as stigma (or numeral wau, ϛ), e.g. p. 131 l. 12. In the apparatuses the letter l is frequently replaced by a vertical bar. In the margins of Or. 17 and 19, page references to Harduin’s edition have Greek letters instead of Latin script. All references to previous editions in the margins of Or. 18 are off.
[15] In Or. 16, MSS are sometimes cited in the order AvΠ, sometimes AΠv; the former is right, cf. Schamp 2022, cccxci-cccxcii. At p. 137 l. 6 there is one case of πραότερα without iota subscriptum, compare p. 130 l. 3 πρᾳότης, p. 93 l. 4 πρᾷον.
[16] The previous volumes are marred by the same blemishes, see Guichard 2023, 607; Cassin 2024, 348.