¹ Swain, S., Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, a.d. 50–250 (Oxford, 1996)Google Scholar; Schmitz, T., Bildung und Macht. Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit. Zetemata 97 (Munich, 1997)Google Scholar; Whitmarsh, T., Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation (Oxford, 2001)Google Scholar. The dynamic, constructivist view of identity and status underlying these studies has now replaced the earlier structural approach represented most clearly in Hopkins, K., ‘Elite mobility in the Roman Empire’, P&P 32 (1965), 12–26.Google Scholar

² Cf. Cameron, A., ‘Education and literary culture’, in ead. and Garnsey, P. (edd.), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XIII. The Late Empire, a.d. 337–425 (Cambridge, 1998), 665–707Google Scholar, at 696.

³ Thus Marrou, H.-I., Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique (Paris, 1938)Google Scholar; Wolf, P., Vom Schulwesen der Spätantike. Studien zu Libanius (Baden Baden, 1952)Google Scholar; Hose, M., ‘Die Krise der Rhetoren. Über den Bedeutungsverlust der institutionellen Rhetorik im 4. Jahrhundert und die Reaktion ihrer Vertreter’, in Neumeister, C. and Raeck, W. (edd.), Rede und Redner. Bewertung und Darstellung in den antiken Kulturen. Kolloquium Frankfurt a.M., 14.16. Oktober 1998 (Frankfurt, 2000), 289–99Google Scholar; Cribiore, R., The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton, 2007)Google Scholar; Kaldellis, A., Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar, 40; Malosse, P.-L. and Schouler, B., ‘Qu'est-ce que la troisième sophistique ?’, Lalies 29 (2009), 161–224Google Scholar, at 164.

⁴ For a survey of passages giving this presentation, cf. Wiemer, H.-U., Libanius und Julian. Studien zum Verhältnis von Rhetorik und Politik im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Munich, 1995)Google Scholar, 24 and n. 49; Hose (n. 3); and Henck, N., ‘Constantius’ paideia, intellectual milieu and promotion of the liberal arts’, PCPhS 47 (2001), 172–87Google Scholar, at 181–2. A brief confrontation between Ammianus' views on Constantius' education and that found in the panegyrics of Libanius, Julian, Aurelius Victor and Themistius can be found in Whitby, M., ‘Images of Constantius’, in Drijvers, J.W. and Hunt, D. (edd.), The Late Roman World and its Historian: Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus (London and New York, 1999), 77–88Google Scholar, at 82.

⁵ Gibbon, E., The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, J.B., vol. 2 (London, 1935), 449–50Google Scholar; Hose (n. 3); Stenger, J., Hellenische Identität in der Spätantike. Griechische Autoren und ihr Unbehagen an der eigenen Zeit, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 97 (Berlin, 2009), 87–8.Google Scholar

⁶ e.g. Scourfield, J.H.D. ‘Introduction’, in id. (ed.), Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity: Inheritance, Authority, and Change (Swansea, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 4. Cf. also Cameron (n. 3), 705; Malosse and Schouler (n. 3), 167–8.

⁷ Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992)Google Scholar, 38. For the uninterrupted flourishing of rhetoric under Constantius, see also Barceló, P., Constantius II. und seine Zeit : Die Anfänge des Staatskirchentums (Stuttgart, 2004)Google Scholar, 29. On the continuity of the social background of senators in the fourth century, see also P. Heather, ‘Senators and senates’, in Cameron and Garnsey (n. 2), 184–210; Heather, P., ‘Themistius. A political philosopher’, in Whitby, M. (ed.), The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 1998), 125–150Google Scholar; Heather, P. and Moncur, D., Politics, Philosophy and Empire in the Fourth Century. Select Orations of Themistius, Translated Texts for Historians (Liverpool, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 59.

⁸ Seiler, E.-M., Konstantios II. bei Libanios. Eine kritische Untersuchung des überlieferten Herrscherbildes, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III 798 (Frankfurt am Main, 1998), 171–9Google Scholar; Henck (n. 4).

⁹ To these literary sources, one could add CTh 14.1.1, an edict jointly issued by Constantius and Julian in February 360, in which they state that ‘no person shall obtain a post of the first rank unless it shall be proved that he excels in long practice of liberal studies and that he is so polished in literary matters that words flow faultlessly from his pen’.

¹⁰ For an overview of all the sources concerning Constantius II, see Vogler, C., Constance II et l'administration imperiale (Strasburg, 1979), 12–81.Google Scholar

¹¹ For the date of Oration 1, see Portmann, W., ‘Zum Datum der ersten Rede des Themistius’, Klio 74 (1992), 411–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnes, T.D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, MA, 1993)Google Scholar, 313 n. 21; Vanderspoel, J., Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor, 1995), 73–7Google Scholar; Ballériaux, O., ‘La date du Πɛρὶ φιλανθρωπίας ἢ Κωνστάντιος (Discours I) de Themistios’, Byzantion 66 (1996), 319–34Google Scholar; and Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 69–71, all with extensive discussion and bibliography on earlier propositions. On Oration 1, see furthermore Downey, G., ‘Themistius’ First Oration’, GRBS 1 (1958), 49–69Google Scholar; Vanderspoel (this note), 71–83; and Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 69–77.

¹² The βασιλικὸς λόγος is discussed at the beginning of the second Treatise attributed to Menander. Cf. Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G., Menander Rhetor (Oxford, 1981), 76–95Google Scholar and 271–81. For the popularity of the scheme, cf. Nixon, C.E.V. and Rogers, B.S. (edd.), In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini (Berkeley, 1994), 10–12Google Scholar; and Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 7, with further bibliography in n. 19.

¹³ Pan. Lat. 11(3).6.1. On the importance of piety and felicity in the panegyric, as well as in the reign of Maximian, cf. Nixon–Rogers (n. 12), 90 n. 40.

¹⁴ At the end of the speech, Themistius, looking back on his own speech, states that ‘this, then, is the true and honest and pure offering to you from philosophy your contemporary’ (τοῦτο δὲ σοι παρὰ φιλοσοφίας τῆς ἡλικιώτιδος ἀνάθημα ἀληθινὸν καὶ ἄδολον καὶ ἀκήρατον). The word ἡλικιῶτις, which can mean either ‘comrade’ or ‘contemporary’, may thus acquire a new sense: apart from pointing to Themistius' friendship with Constantius (Downey [n. 11], 69) and the fact that both men were born in the same year and were thus ‘contemporaries’ (Heather and Moncur [n. 7], 96 and n. 151), Themistius may also be highlighting that the philosophy he is offering Constantius is adapted, and particularly suited, to the mid-fourth century.

¹⁵ Cf. Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 24 and 67; Malosse and Schouler (n. 3), 202; Stenger (n. 5), 122–3. For Themistius' concept of philanthropy, see also Daly, L., ‘Themistius’ concept of philanthropia’, Byzantion 45 (1975), 22–40Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Cf. Harries, J., Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 2001), 136–50Google Scholar; Van Nuffelen, P., ‘The unstained rule of Theodosius II. A Late Antique panegyrical topos and moral concern’, in Van Houdt, T. (ed.), Imago Virtutis: Studies on the Conceptualisation and Transformation of an Ancient Ideal (Leuven and Namur, 2004), 229–56Google Scholar. Themistius' first oration, although not discussed by Van Nuffelen, may in fact be one of the earliest panegyrics exhibiting the greater importance attached to the ideal of the ‘unstained rule’.

¹⁷ On the lack of concrete examples in Themistius' first oration, cf. Stenger (n. 5), 127 and 181.

¹⁸ Attributively used, the adjective φιλάνθρωπος distinguishes the philanthropic king from another kind of king. Given that Constantius is not being explicitly compared to any other emperor in the speech (if delivered in 350, Constantius was already sole Emperor; but even if delivered before, Constans is not mentioned in Themistius' speech, as opposed, for example, to Libanius' Panegyric for Constantius and Constans), the opposition nevertheless concerns the philanthropic king versus the tyrant more generally. This opposition is made explicit in 3v, 6a, 8c, 11b, 13a and 17d.

¹⁹ Constantius is addressed in the second person only in 1a, 2b, 14b and 18a. A clear case in which Themistius' advice is rather general occurs in 6a, where Themistius uses φημί with infinitive (‘to contend that’) rather than λέγω with a ὅτι-clause (‘to state that’) when contending that justice is the most important characteristic of a king. At other points, it is less clear whether Themistius is describing Constantius' practice or prescribing rules, yet often such ambiguous cases are surrounded by what are clearly general rules rather than specific actions. A case in point can be found in 5b, which follows 5a and is followed by 5c. In 5a, Themistius in fact explicitly points out that his discourse is not dependent on Constantius: καθ' αὑτὸν ὁ λόγος βαδίζɛι καὶ οὐκ ἐπɛρɛίδɛται βασιλɛῖ τοῦ προɛλθɛῖν ἀσφαλέστɛρον (‘my speech goes its own way, and is not dependent upon the king in proceeding with greater certainty’). The independence of Themistius as a praise-giver in this speech is also noted by Stenger (n. 5), 117.

²⁰ Whilst it would be wrong to see Quintilian's ‘second course’ as inherently more philosophical than Menander's – Libanius' speeches in honour of Julian, for example, clearly present Julian as a philosopher whilst following Menander's scheme (cf. Stenger [n. 5], 188) – this and the other elements enumerated here add to the philosophical nature of the text.

²¹ For the importance of making clear the speaker's êthos or ‘moral character’ in the speech in order to convince the audience, cf. Arist. Rh. 1.2.3–4.

²² Cf. Themistius' Oration 24, his only surviving speech to have been delivered before Oration 1; in it Themistius favourably compares his own, philosophical rhetoric, to that of other, more sophistic(ated) orators.

²³ For the original delivery of the discourse, see below § II. Note that some years later, Julian, in his Letter to Themistius 253c–254b, derides Themistius' claims to truth in praising him as Heracles or Dionysus. Cf. Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 20–1.

²⁴ For the Dionic echoes in Themistius' philosophical self-presentation, see Whitby (n. 4), 78. I leave aside here the discussion of whether Dio delivered his Kingship Orations in Trajan's presence: what matters is that Dio purports to be addressing Trajan, and can reasonably be assumed to have hoped to reach the emperor's ear either directly or indirectly. On the question of Trajan's presence, cf. Swain (n. 1), 193–4 and Whitmarsh (n. 1), 186–8 and 325–7, with further bibliography.

²⁵ For philosophy as a way of gaining access to power, cf. Hahn, J., Der Philosoph und die Gesellschaft. Selbstverständnis, öffentliches Auftreten und populäre Erwartungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart, 1989)Google Scholar; Whitmarsh (n. 1), 181–246.

²⁶ There are more than ten mentions of flattery in Dio's third Kingship Oration (3.3, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 149), as against just the two in Themistius (twice in 3c). Conversely, ‘philosophy’ does not occur in Dio's third Kingship Oration, whilst it occurs seven times in Themistius' first oration (1a, 3c, 3d, 9b, 13b, 18a, 18b).

²⁷ According to Moles, J., ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, PLLS 6 (1990), 297–375Google Scholar, at 361, the third Kingship Oration was the last to be written by Dio.

²⁸ Dio indeed admits to have been familiar with Trajan for a long time (3.2), yet he evokes his freedom of speech under Trajan's cruel predecessors (3.12–13) in order to ‘prove’ that he will definitely not flatter the mild emperor that Trajan is. Nevertheless, he feels the need over and over again to set himself apart from flatterers (cf. n. 26 above). Note also that Themistius will have to counter similar criticisms after assuming the Urban Prefecture of Constantinople under Theodosius (cf. Or. 17, 31 and 34).

²⁹ Oration 24, to be dated in the early 340s. For the date of Themistius' so-called private orations, see Penella, R.J., The Private Orations of Themistius (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2000), xiii and 1–48Google Scholar. Oration 1 is the first (also chronologically) of the so-called public orations.

³⁰ For Paphlagonia's reputation for backwardness, see Marek, C., ‘Paphlagonia’, DNP 9 (2000), 282–3.Google Scholar

³¹ Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 97 n. 154. Given the different power balance in the Demegoria as compared to Themistius' first oration, however, I do not think it likely that Themistius was the author of the Demegoria, as has been suggested.

³² e.g. the importance of virtue: 19c, 19d, 20b, 23c; Themistius' status as a philosopher: 19a, 19d, 20a, 20b, 21c, 22a, 22b, 22c, 22d ff.; the importance of speaking the truth: 19a, 20c. Elm, S., Sons of Hellenism, Fathers of the Church: Emperor Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and the Vision of Rome (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2012)Google Scholar, 81 therefore talks about ‘Constantius's endorsement of Themistius's philosophical concepts’, stating that ‘Themistius's views and his philosophical life stood for Constantius's interpretation of the philosophical life as governance’. As this article shows, however, Constantius' view on the philosophical life does not entirely coincide with that of Themistius.

³³ ɛὖ οἶδα ὅτι τῶν κατɛιλɛγμένων ἐπαίνων οὐ μɛτὰ τῆς ἴσης ἡδονῆς ἁπάντων ἀκούɛι Θɛμίστιος, ἀλλὰ μόνους τοὺς ὑπὲρ φιλοσοφίας οἰκɛίους ἡγɛῖται, τοὺς λοιποὺς δὲ ἢ λέγɛσθαι μɛτρίως ἢ σιωπᾶσθαι βούλɛται (‘I know well that Themistius does not listen to this whole catalogue of praises with equal pleasure but only has regard for those which relate to philosophy and wishes the rest either to be spoken of in moderation or left in silence’, 22c tr. Heather and Moncur [n. 7], 113).

³⁴ Note also that Constantius stresses that Themistius, ‘though careless of wealth, is nevertheless not oppressed by poverty’ (22a).

³⁵ The senate's concern for virtue is highlighted in 19c–d.

³⁶ Cf. Swain (n. 1), 6, 40, 88 and Whitmarsh (n. 1), 1–20.

³⁷ Cf. Whitmarsh (n. 1), 210–13.

³⁸ In his speech of thanks, written in response to the Demegoria, Themistius will once again judge the emperor against the standards of philosophy (Or. 2.25a, 26a–b, 30b, 36b–c, 40a), whilst at the same time presenting himself as a philosopher thoroughly engaged in society (Or. 2.31a–b, 32a, 34d).

³⁹ See also 20d, 21a, 21d, and 22b.

⁴⁰ See also 20d, 21a, 21b, 21d, 22b. For the early development of Constantinople, see furthermore Dagron, G., Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, 1974)Google Scholar; Mango, C., Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe – VIIe siècles), Travaux et Mémoires 2 (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar; and Vanderspoel (n. 11), 51–70; on the Constantinopolitan senate, see Skinner, A., ‘The birth of a “Byzantine” senatorial perspective’, Arethusa 33 (2000), 363–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the choice of senators in Constantinople, cf. Heather, P., ‘New men for new Constantines? Creating an imperial elite in the Eastern Mediterranean’, in Magdalino, P. (ed.), New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4^th–13^th Centuries, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 2 (London, 1994), 11–33.Google Scholar

⁴¹ e.g. Vanderspoel (n. 11), 77 (‘it may have led to his appointment at the city’) and Stenger (n. 5), 117 (‘… in seiner ersten Rede, mit der er Zugang zur näheren Umgebung des Constantius erlangte’).

⁴² For the manuscript tradition, see Downey, G., Themistii Orationes quae supersunt (Leipzig, 1965)Google Scholar, vii–xxv; Heather and Moncur (n. 7), xv–xvi. For the authorship of the hypotheseis preceding Themistius' Orations 1, 2, 4 and 20 and Constantius' Letter to the Senate, cf. Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 75–6 and Henck (n. 4), 179.

⁴³ On the Latin side one can think, for example, of Firmicius Maternus, and Aurelius Victor.

⁴⁴ A fragment (fr. 1.6: R.J. Penella, Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 43 [Berkeley, 2007], 272–4) has been preserved of a speech for Constantius by Himerius, probably delivered in Sirmium on the occasion of Gallus' Caesarship (March 351). Cf. also Barnes, T.D., ‘Himerius and the fourth century’, CPh 82 (1987), 206–25Google Scholar, at 209, 212, 224. Himerius seems to have been active, or even based, in Constantinople between 343 and 352. Active: Penella (n. 44), 3–4; settled: Barnes (this note), 210, 212, 224.

⁴⁵ Bemarchius is called a ‘staunch supporter of Constantius’ (μάλα δὲ τὸν Κωνστάντιον ᾑρηκὼς ἀνήρ) in Lib. Or. 1.39. Cf. also n. 55.

⁴⁶ In Ep. 440 Foerster, Libanius refers to himself as a ‘man who has often sung his (Constantius’) praises'. In Ep. 48 Foerster, Libanius reacts to an invitation from the Master of the Offices Florentius to come to court and speak for Constantius, saying that whilst his bodily condition prevents him from coming, he might give a speech for the emperor if he comes to Antioch. Cf. Wiemer (n. 4), 27–8.

⁴⁷ According to its hypothesis, Oration 1 was ‘delivered at Ancyra in Galatia when he first met the king, while still a young man’. In his Letter to the Senate 22c–d, Constantius also indicates that he has long been familiar with Themistius.

⁴⁸ Pace Portmann, W., Geschichte in der spätantiken Panegyrik (Frankfurt am Main, 1988)Google Scholar, 128 and Portmann, W., ‘Die 59. Rede des Libanios und das Datum der Schlacht von Singara’, ByzZ 82 (1989), 1–18Google Scholar, at 6, neither Constantius nor Constans can have been present when Libanius delivered his panegyric. Cf. Malosse, P.-L., Libanios. Discours LIX, Collection des Universités de France (Paris, 2003)Google Scholar, 8. And whilst Constantius spent much time in Antioch between 337 and 350, Libanius was away from his home city between 336 and 354.

⁴⁹ For the date of Oration 1, see above, n. 11.

⁵⁰ Imperial decree before panegyric: Oration 1.37, referring to 340/1 (δόγματά τɛ ἐγράφɛτο παρὰ τοῦ κρατοῦντος ἐπαγγέλλοντα τὴν ἐμὴν αὐτοῦ μονήν); imperial summons to return to Constantinople after panegyric: Oration 1.74, referring to 348/9 (βασιλɛίοις γράμμασιν). As will be shown in § IV, Libanius' first oration is no ‘objective’ account of the sophist's career. With regard to official documents, however, he could hardly tell blatant lies. Moreover, as Kaster, R., ‘The salaries of Libanius’, Chiron 13 (1983), 37–59Google Scholar has shown, Libanius continued to enjoy an imperial salary for much of his career as a teacher, except for a brief period some time after his return to Antioch.

⁵¹ For the traditional date of Oration 59 in 348/9, cf. Sievers, G.R., Das Leben des Libanius (Berlin, 1868)Google Scholar, 56 n. 13 and Foerster, R., Libanii Opera (Leipzig, 1903–23)Google Scholar, 201. Since the new dating of the Battle of Singara (cf. Portmann [n. 48]), it has been suggested that Oration 59 may date from 344/5, yet as Malosse, P.-L., ‘Enquête sur la date du Discours 59 de Libanios’, AntTard 9 (2001), 297–306Google Scholar and (n. 48), 9–10 has demonstrated, the terminus post quem for Oration 59 is 346, which makes a date in 347/8 most likely.

⁵² Lib. Or. 59: delivered between 344 and 349, acknowledgement for it in 349 at the latest; Them. Or. 1: delivered in 347 or 350, acknowledgement for it in 355.

⁵³ For Libanius' return to Antioch and imperial efforts to bring him back to Constantinople, cf. Wintjes, J., Das Leben des Libanius, Historische Studien der Universität Würzburg 2 (Rahden, 2005), 99–115Google Scholar. It is possible, in fact, that Constantius also implicitly criticizes Libanius when commending Themistius because ‘he chooses the city of his own free will and is not forced to lie here because he has to, but would leave only if forced to do so’ (Letter to the Senate 22b). For the criticism of Constantinopolitan senators implied in this commendation, cf. Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 113 n. 205.

⁵⁴ Whilst it is true that some forty-five letters precede Libanius' letter of congratulation to Themistius at the occasion of his adlection (Ep. 434 Foerster), Libanius may well have decided to start publishing his letters in books after his return to Antioch had been secured. The importance of Themistius' adlection in his own return to Antioch may be mirrored in the central position of the letter of congratulations in Book 5 (Ep. 390–493).

⁵⁵ For Constantinople as a city of culture, see also Henck (n. 4), 177–9.

⁵⁶ Lib. Or. 1.35, referring to 340/1, states that upon his arrival in Constantinople, a Cappadocian held a chair ‘βασιλέως πέμποντος’. The verb πέμπω can refer either to the fact that the emperor sent him <a letter> to invite him to the chair, or to the fact that the emperor sent this man from Cappadocia <to Constantinople>, thus stressing Constantius' efforts in building up the new capital.

⁵⁷ It should be noted, however, that all three authors seem to have adapted their religious ideas in their orations for Constantius. For Themistius' accomodation of Christians as well as pagans in Oration 1, cf. n. 12 above. Libanius' Oration 59, on the other hand, was termed by Malosse (n. 48), 63 a monotheistic discourse. And of Bemarchius, Libanius states that ‘although he personally was a worshipper of the gods, he spoke in praise of him who had set himself up against them, and discoursed at length upon the church Constantius had built for him’ (Or. 1.39).

⁵⁸ Heather and Moncur (n. 7), 23–4. Themistius' moderate ‘paganism’ as an Aristotelian philosopher – maybe in deliberate opposition to some Neoplatonic philosophers who vehemently opposed the emperor's Christianity (cf. Fowden, G., ‘The pagan holy man in late antique society’, JHS 102 [1982], 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar) – will have argued in his favour.

⁵⁹ One can of course argue that the letter was written by the ab epistulis (cf. Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (31 bc – ad 337) [London, 1977], 91–4Google Scholar) rather than by the emperor himself. Be that as it may, what matters is that the letter was approved by the emperor and presented to the senate as a letter from Constantius.

⁶⁰ Julian also seems to have taken part in the battle for Constantius' cultural attention: as shown by S. Schorn, ‘Legitimation und Sicherung von Herrschaft durch Kritik am Kaiser. Zum sogenannten zweiten Panegyrikos Julians auf Kaiser Constantius (Oratio 2 [3] Bidez)’, in Baier, T. and Amerise, M. (edd.), Die Legitimation von Einzelherrschaft im Kontext der Generationenthematik (Berlin, 2008), 243–74Google Scholar, Julian, in Oration 3, tried to present himself rather than Themistius as a good candidate to be Constantius' court philosopher. Themistius, conversely, seems to have tried to dissuade Julian from presenting himself as a philosopher. Cf. Stenger (n. 5), 136–51.

⁶¹ See the differing assessments of Julian's philosophical qualities in Athanassiadi, P., Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar and Smith, R., Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (London, 1995).Google Scholar

⁶² For a long time, scholars dated Julian's Letter to Nilus Dionysius to New Year 362–3. Cf. Asmus, R., ‘Julians Brief an Dionysios’, AGPh 15 (1902), 425–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 432 n. 11; Wright, W.C., The Works of the Emperor Julian, vol. 3 (Cambridge, MA and London, 1923)Google Scholar, 157; and Caltabiano, M., ‘Il senatore romano Nilo e la paideia ellenica’, in Collectanea Philologica II in honorem Annae Mariae Komornicka (Lodz, 1995), 41–51Google Scholar. More recently, however, Wiemer, H.-U., ‘Das Missgeschick des Nilus. Zeit und Umstände von Julians offenem Brief gegen den römischen Senator Nilus Dionysius’, Klio 78 (1996), 192–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar has convincingly shown September/October 362 to be the terminus ante quem.

⁶³ It is well known that Aurelius Victor, for example, was made consular governor of Pannonia Secunda by, and received a statue from, Julian in 361 notwithstanding his previous position under, and support for, Constantius. Cf. Nixon, C.E.V., ‘Aurelius Victor and Julian’, CPh 86 (1991), 113–25Google Scholar. On Victor's adoption by Julian, cf. Amm. Marc. 21.10.6; on his position under Constantius, cf. Bird, H.W., Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus (Liverpool, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, viii and Henck (n. 4), 173.

⁶⁴ Amm. Marc. 21.10.7. A number of individual senators, on the other hand, chose the opposite course and accepted political office when Julian offered it to them: Ammianus (21.12.24–5) refers to Rufinus Vulcatius' nephew Maximus (made prefect of the city), Mamertinus (praetorian prefect of Illyricum made consul) and Nevitta (made consul).

⁶⁵ Julian himself explicitly points out that although Nilus, as a senator, disobeyed a command from his emperor, he chose not to punish him, although he would have had legal grounds for doing so. Instead, he wrote him a letter, hoping to convince him (446A). The punishment, i.e. the current letter, came only after Nilus' own letter.

⁶⁶ Cf. also the references to sound judgement (κρίσɛι) and duty (τὸ δέον) in this passage.

⁶⁷ See e.g. Gleason, M., Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton, 1995), 82–158Google Scholar; Whitmarsh (n. 1), 109–16.

⁶⁸ Malosse, P.-L., ‘Rhétorique, philosophie et prostitution’, in Auger, D. and Wolff, E. (edd.), Culture classique et christianisme. Mélanges offerts à Jean Bouffartigue (Paris, 2008), 57–70Google Scholar, 65–7.

⁶⁹ On the missed opportunity, in Nilus' letter, to highlight the writer's paideia through a correct use of the Attic language, see Luchner, K., ‘Grund, Fundament, Mauerwerk, Dach? Julian's φιλοσοφία im Netzwerk seiner Briefe’, in Schäfer, C. (ed.), Kaiser Julian ‘Apostata’ und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum (Berlin and New York, 2008), 221–52Google Scholar, at 242–3. For the importance of Atticism in the Second Sophistic, see Schmid, W., Der Atticismus in seinem Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart, 1887–97)Google Scholar; Swain (n. 1), 43–64; Schmitz (n. 1), 67–96; Whitmarsh (n. 1), 6–7 and Whitmarsh, T., The Second Sophistic, New Surveys in the Classics 35 (Oxford, 2005), 41–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cf. Lucianic texts such as Against the Ignorant Book Collector, Nigrinus or Philosophies for Sale. Likewise, Dio Chrysostom, in his fourth Kingship Oration, states that having read many books in itself does not make one a pepaideumenos, let alone a good man (§ 30). For a discussion of such would-be pepaideumenoi, see Schmitz (n. 1), 146–56.

⁷¹ Cf. also Malosse (n. 68).

⁷² The best surveys of Libanius' relations with, and orations for, Julian are Scholl, R., Historische Beiträge zu den Julianischen Reden des Libanios (Stuttgart, 1994)Google Scholar and Wiemer (n. 4), on whom I rely heavily in this paragraph.

⁷³ Bradbury, S., Selected Letters of Libanius from the Age of Constantius and Julian, Translated Texts for Historians 41 (Liverpool, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 52. For the identity of the addressee, see Wiemer (n. 62).

⁷⁴ For Libanius and Julian before Julian's arrival in Antioch: Wiemer (n. 4), 13–47, discussing the initial lack of contact after Julian came to power on pp. 35–47 and the situation of other cultural figures at the same time on pp. 32–5.

⁷⁵ Date of delivery: Ep. 736 Foerster; no success: Wiemer (n. 4), 43 and 77–123.

⁷⁶ For the structure of the speech according to the guidelines of the συμβουλɛυτικὸς λόγος, as well as for a survey of its contents, see Wiemer (n. 4), 125–7 and 135–41. Focussing on Libanius' comments on Aristophanes' paganism, Wiemer comes to the conclusion (p. 146) that religious affiliation was Julian's top priority when taking decisions. Although valuable in itself, this analysis seems to put rather too much weight on religion to the neglect of Greek culture more generally as well as extra-textual elements influencing Julian's reaction.

⁷⁷ Pace Stenger (n. 5), 291–2. The speech was not delivered, but sent to Julian in written form. Cf. Lib. Ep. 760 Foerster and Julian. Ep. 96 and 97.

⁷⁸ Lib. Ep. 758 Foerster = 95 Norman. As Libanius recounts it in his letter, the anecdote is clearly intended to be amusing. It should be taken into account, however, that the letter was written in reaction to, and thus after, the enthusiastic letter in which Julian expressed approval of Libanius' oration (Julian. Ep. 53 Wright). While at this point in time Libanius could join in the courtiers' laughter, it is much less certain that he would not have been concerned before receiving the emperor's approval, given the serious fate that had recently befallen Nilus, as well as his own earlier lack of success in convincing Julian.

⁷⁹ For Libanius as a helpful voice in the 362/3 Antiochene crisis, see Van Hoof, L. and Van Nuffelen, P., ‘Monarchy and mass communication. Antioch a.d. 362/3 revisited’, JRS 101 (2011), 166–84Google Scholar, at 178–84.

⁸⁰ Lib. Ep. 758 Foerster = 95.4 Norman.

⁸¹ For a detailed analysis of Libanius' Autobiography as a narrative text constructing Libanius' past and identity, see Van Hoof, L., ‘Libanius’ Life and life. A narratological analysis of Libanius' Autobiography’, forthcoming in Van Hoof, L. (ed.), Libanius: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge, 2013).Google Scholar

⁸² e.g. Cribiore (n. 3); Malosse and Schouler (n. 3), 179.

⁸³ e.g. Johnson, A.P., ‘Hellenism and its discontents in Late Antiquity’, in Johnson, S.F. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2012), 433–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar on Hellenism as a toolbox.