Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:04:01.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Themistius and the Defense of Hellenism in the Fourth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Glanville Downey
Glanville Downey
Affiliation:
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D. C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In part, perhaps, because of the lack of a modern edition — the most recent, Wilhelm Dindorf's text of 1832, has become extremely scarce — Themistius' orations, and their significance in the religious and intellectual history of the fourth century, have not been as well known as they should be. It is hoped that a new edition may be forthcoming before long. In the meantime the present study will offer some observations on Themistius' writings which will suggest some of his significance in the general picture of the fourth century. Incidentally the writer will venture to point out various passages which suggest that Themistius had some knowledge of the Christian scriptures, especially the New Testament.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 1957 , pp. 259 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1957

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

1 Heinrich Schenkl was preparing a new edition which remained unfinished at his death. The present writer has carried on this work, and it is hoped that a new text, with translation and commentary, may be published soon.

2 On Themistius' life and writings see Stegemann, W., “Themistios,” RE VA (1934), 1642–1680Google Scholar. Stegemann establishes a chronology of the orations which differs from the numeration adopted by Dindorf in his edition, but in the present study references will be given according to Dindorf's text, except in the case of Or. XXXIV, in which the pagination of both A. Mai's editio princeps and Dindorf's edition will be given.

3 See further my studies “Education and Public Problems as Seen by Themistius,” Trans. Amer. Philol. Assoc. LXXXVI (1955), 291–307Google Scholar, and “Education in the Christian Roman Empire,” Speculum XXXII (1957) 48–61.

4 The significance of Themistius' orations in the history of imperial political theory will be studied in detail by Professor F. Dvornik in his study of political theory which is now in progress.

5 On Libanius' career, see the recent study by P. Petit, Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au IVe siècle après J.-C. (Paris, 1955; Inst. Franç. d'Archéol. de Beyrouth, Bibl. archéol. et histor. LXII).

6 Julian's attitude toward the Roman gods is reflected in such passages as Contra Galileos 218a-b, 230a, 238d; Misopogon 345b–c, cf. 357c–d; Caesars 320a–322a, 329b–d, 336a–b (these three passages should be read all together); see also the study by Dvornik, F., “The Emperor Julian's ‘Reactionary’ Ideas on Kingship,” Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of A. M. Friend Jr. (Princeton 1955) 71–81Google Scholar. The present writer hopes to study elsewhere the evidence (in part numismatic) that Julian's program was basically a reaction against the Constantinian economic and administrative policies. On the growing interest in this part of Julian's program, see Stroheker, K. F., “Das konstantinische Jahrhundert,” Saeculum III (1953), 676Google Scholar.

7 Orations VII, 89d; XI, 147c; XIX, 229a.

8 Plato, Republic 332a-335a; Crito 49a ff.

9 Or. XXXIV, p. 68 Mai, p. 468 Dindorf.

10 Exod. XXXIV, 7; Num. XIV, 18; Deut. V, 9.

11 Plato, Theaet. 175a; Isocrates, Evag. XVII, 192b.

12 Cf. Them. Oratt. XXI, 246c-247a; XXVI, 313d-314a.

13 Cf. Them. Oratt. II, 32d (quoting Plato Theaet. 176b); VI, 78c, 79a; XV, 188b, 188d, 189a-b; XIX, 226d-227a; XXXIV, p. 74 Mai, p. 471 Dindorf.

14 See further in my study “Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century after Christ,” Historia IV (1955) 199–208Google Scholar.

15 Cf. Them. Oratt. III, 46a; IV, 62a; VIII, 105b, 119d; XVII, 215b-c; XXXIV, p. 50 Mai, p. 461 Dindorf.

16 Iliad II, 169, 407, 636; X, 137. See also Them. Oratt. I, 6b; XI, 143a.

17 Plato, Republic 473c-d, 510e; Politicus 259b, 266c.

18 Strom. VII, 3, 19, 1, p. 14, 4 ed. Stählin; VII, 9, 53, 5, p. 40, 2. See further my article on philanthropia, cited above, n. 14.

19 Euseb. Eccl. hist. X, 9.

20 For Eusebius' conception of philanthropia as a characteristic of the ruler, see Triakontaeterikos II, 5, p. 200, 12 ed. Heikel.

21 See Holl, K., The Distinctive Elements in Christianity, transl. by Hope, N. V. (Edinburgh 1937), 14Google Scholar.