The severitas of Constantine: imperial virtues in Panegyrici Latini VII(6) and VI(7)

86 Journal of Late Antiquity 7.1 (Spring): 86–109 © 2014 Johns Hopkins University Press

Catherine Ware

The Severitas of Constantine: Imperial Virtues in Panegyrici Latini 7(6) and 6(7)*

Praise of an emperor’s virtues was the core of a panegyric. The range of qualities that could function as imperial virtues under particular circum-stances allowed for a complex vocabulary of praise and could provide a highly nuanced portrait of the emperor. This paper examines fi rstly how virtues are used to establish and develop the character of the emperor Con-stantine in the panegyrics of 307 and 310 CE (Pan. Lat. 7(6) and 6(7)), and secondly how the description of Constantine’s harshness on campaign (Pan. Lat. 6(7)) draws on the rhetorical tradition of didactic and exemplary writ-ing to demonstrate that an emperor must be capable of displaying severitas rather than clementia when it is in the public interest.

The late antique collection of imperial orations known as the Panegyrici Latini gives unique insight into the changing public persona of the emperor Constantine. Although the argument remains speculative, it has been sug-gested that the corpus as a whole centers on a nucleus of seven speeches in honor of the fi rst Tetrarchy and Constantine.1 This mini-collection may well have been assembled as a tribute to Constantine, whose background and rise to power can be read as a linear narrative in speeches from 289 to 313 ce. Written for a specifi c occasion, each speech stands alone yet intertextual links show that the orators of the later panegyrics read their predecessors very care-fully. In addition to verbal and thematic parallels, the careful distribution and

* My thanks are due to the Irish Research Council for postdoctoral funding, to Christopher Kelly and Rebecca Langlands for their insightful suggestions at the original presentation of this paper, and to the comments of Noel Lenski and the anonymous readers at the Journal of Late Antiquity.

1 This theory is based on an incipit in some manuscripts placed before 5(8), incipiunt Panegirici diversorum vii (the start of seven panegyrics by diff erent authors), and it has been theorized that the seven speeches from 289 to 311 (10(2) to 5(8)) were compiled c. 311–12 ce with 12(9) added shortly afterwards. For a summary of these theories, see Pichon 1906, 284–5, 289–90; Galletier 1949, 1.xi, xii–xiii. For a rather diff erent theory suggesting Nazarius as the editor of this early col-lection, see Barnes 2011, 182–3.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 86JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 86 7/20/2014 10:34:56 PM7/20/2014 10:34:56 PM

WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 87

redistribution of imperial virtues from one panegyric to another allowed the panegyrists to create and refi ne the imperial portrait. This technique was of particular importance in the speeches of 307 and 310, which demonstrate a striking transformation in the depiction of the emperor in response to the dramatic political upheavals of the recent past.

Constantine appears fi rst in the collection in 7 (6) of 307 ce, where he is honored jointly with the Herculian emperor Maximian. 2 The occasion is his marriage to Maximian’s daughter Fausta and his elevation to Augustus.3 In this speech, Constantine is clearly the junior Augustus whose praise derives largely from his new connection to Maximian and his resemblance in charac-ter and nature to his father Constantius. The next panegyric, 6(7) of 310, was written in very diff erent circumstances. Maximian had recently risen against his son-in-law but had been defeated by Constantine’s army and was now dead.4 The earlier connection with Maximian was now an embarrassment and Constantine had to be shown to be capable of independent government. This paper will examine fi rstly how the orator of 7(6) employed the estab-lished range of imperial virtues to create clearly distinct personas for two very diff erent emperors, and how the orator of 6(7) divested Maximian of these virtues and transferred them to Constantine. The second part of the paper will examine the character of Constantine in 6(7), and what appears to be his deliberate rejection of such gentler qualities as mercy and forgiveness in favour of severity and harshness. In his portrayal of the emperor and his “unpleasant” virtues, the panegyrist casts himself as teacher to the youthful emperor and draws on the tradition of exemplary argument to examine what exactly was required of a ruler.

Praising the Emperor: The Transmission of VirtuesThe virtues of an emperor were intrinsic to his public persona, appearing on coins and monumental sculpture, in inscriptions and panegyric.5 In the Republic, Plato had asserted that wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice were the cardinal virtues required for good government, and the handbooks

2 The numbering of the panegyrics follows the system of Mynors’ 1964 Oxford edition, by which the panegyrics are listed in their manuscript order (reversed chronological order for the most part) with the chronological sequence in parenthesis. 7(6), written in 307, is the seventh oration in the collection while 6(7), written in 310, is the sixth.

3 For the date and historical background to this panegyric, see Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 178–90; Odahl 2004, 83, 87–8.

4 For date and background, see Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 211–17; Odahl 2004, 93–5.5 For an introduction to this vast topic, see Mattingly 1937; Weinstock 1971, 228–69; Fears

1981; Wallace-Hadrill 1981; Noreña 2001; Noreña 2011. On the virtues in the Panegyrici Latini, see Seager 1983; L’Huillier 1992, 325–60; on those of Constantine, see Rodríguez Gervás 1984–5.


88 Journal of Late Antiquity

on rhetoric advised panegyrists to praise these four distinctly and clearly.6 In the Roman encomiastic tradition, the concept of canonical imperial virtues originated with Augustus’ clupeus virtutis, which recognized his virtus (brav-ery), clementia (clemency), iustitia (justice), and pietas (duty) (Res Gestae, 4).7 These would become an established trope of Latin panegyric.8 Though encomiastic, they were also a statement of ideology, an assertion of the prin-ciples on which the new principate was founded.9 From the reign of Augustus onwards, it was accepted that the character of an emperor and his ability to govern depended on his possession of particular virtues.

As imperial praise became formalized, the writers of the rhetorical hand-books, familiar with philosophical writings on kingship, promoted the con-cept of canonical virtue,10 but an alternative, more practical canon developed alongside the traditional four. An emperor’s primary goal was reassurance through promises of continuing victory and stability. Noreña identifi es aequi-tas (fairness), pietas, virtus, liberalitas (generosity), and providentia (fore-sight) as the virtues most commonly found on coins from 69 to 235 ce.11 This was a selection that created for the emperor a symbolically and ideologically coherent persona and demonstrated the practical benefi t of the imperial reign. These same virtues are also promoted in panegyrics of the third and fourth centuries and recur frequently throughout the corpus of the Panegyrici Lati-ni.12 We also fi nd qualities that would have been appreciated by people who had suff ered a century of war and famine: coins and panegyrics alike promise pax (peace), salus (safety), and victoria (victory).13 At times, circumstances also dictated an emphasis on particular virtues. Concordia (harmony), for example, appears twice in the panegyric of 307 to celebrate the new alliance

6 Plat. Resp. 4.427e; cf. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1441b with Russell 1998, 18; Menander Rhetor, 2.373 (Russell and Wilson 1981, 84).

7 For these four virtues, Weinstock 1971, 228–59. On the clupeus virtutis see Ryberg 1966. 8 There are objections to describing this group as a canon, a term that implies a monolithic

imperial persona, cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1981, 300; Galinsky 1996, 88. In fact, the pattern of four appears with variations throughout the Panegyrici Latini. Constantius, for example, is said to have promoted continentia (restraint), modestia (modesty), vigiliantia (watchfulness), and prudentia (prudence) as canonical (9(4)8.2) and to have passed on continentia, fortitudo (strength), iustitia, and prudentia to his son (7(6)3.4); cf. 3(11)21.4, 2(12)20.5.

9 Galinsky 1996, 88–9.10 On canons of virtues in Greek and Roman literature, see North 1966.11 Noreña 2011, 61–100.12 With the exception of Aequitas, both attributed only to Trajan and to Julian, who is accompa-

nied by the personifi ed canon of Aequitas, Temperantia (Moderation), Fortitudo, and Providentia at Pan. Lat. 3(11)5.4.

13 Sutherland 1967, 698–707. For a late antique canon of virtues, one could add qualities acknowledging the increasingly elaborate ritualization of the court and the formalization of the imperial persona: maiestas (majesty), dignitas (honor), and, paradoxically, civilitas (citizen-like behavior).



between Maximian and Constantine,14 although it does not reappear in the collection until 321 ce, where it occurs fi ve times in a short passage intended to underline Constantine’s reluctance at being compelled to make war on Maxentius.15 Pan. Lat. 5(8) of 311 ce, a speech giving thanks for the remis-sion of taxes, is completely free of military virtues but concentrates instead on Constantine’s generosity, referring once to his bonitas (goodness), twice to his liberalitas (generosity), and seven times to his indulgentia (indulgence).16

The multiplication of virtues led to an increasingly complex vocabulary of praise. Wickert lists fi fty virtues in his discussion of the princeps17 and there are some ninety qualities in the Panegyrici Latini that function as imperial virtues. Many are related, having evolved from one of the Platonic or Augus-tan canonical virtues, and their evolution allowed for a considerable range of qualities, many of which are morally ambiguous. Virtus, for example, in the sense of military bravery, may be said to be the parent of fortitudo (strength), alacritas (eagerness), fi ducia (confi dence), severitas (severity), duritia (hard-ness), ferocitas (fi erceness), and vis (force). Although fortitudo, alacritas, and fi ducia are positive traits, severitas and duritia are hardly attractive and the good side of ferocitas and vis depend entirely on the context and the ora-tor’s gloss. Ferocitas, in fact, more usually characterizes barbarian savagery, yet according to the conventions of panegyric whatever the emperor does is praiseworthy.18 If the emperor displays ferocitas on a particular occasion, as Constantine does at Verona, then ferocitas becomes, temporarily at least, an imperial virtue and perhaps one that invites the listener to think closely about the nature of imperium. 19 In short, the extensive lexicon of virtues through selection, emphasis, or omission, enabled a very nuanced portrayal of the emperor.

14 Pan. Lat. 7(6)1.4, 13.3.15 Pan. Lat. 6(10)9.3–10.4. The emperor’s patientia (endurance), clementia, prudentia twice,

temperantia twice, venia (pardon), virtus, gravitas (dignity), modestia, decus (honor), and pietas also feature in this passage, underlining his peaceful and unwarlike nature.

16 Bonitas: 9.2, 10.1; liberalitas: 10.5, 14.1; indulgentia: 1.3, 8.3, 10.4, 11.2, 12.1, 12.6, 13.4. There are also three references to his restitutio (restoration), a quality that Seager 1983, 145 sug-gests should also be classifi ed as an imperial virtue in the Panegyrici Latini. Cf. 9(4), which thanks the emperor for fi nancing the restoration of schools in Gaul and emphasizes benevolentia (benevo-lence), benignitas (kindness), indulgentia, liberalitas, and references restitutio seven times.

17 Wickert 1954.18 Barbarian ferocity is a commonplace of the Panegyrici Latini, e.g. 1(1)12.3, 4(10)16.5,

6(7)10.7. On barbarian ferocia and feritas (savagery) in the Panegyrici Latini, see Dauge 1981, 326–9, and generally 654–67.

19 Pan. Lat. 12(9)10.5. This is the only instance of ferocitas in the Panegyrici Latini as an impe-rial virtue and it appears in the context of battle. For the positive ferocia of Roman soldiers, see Tac. An. 2.25.



Intertextuality allowed for further layers of nuance and interpretation. That the orators of the Panegyrici Latini read and reacted to the work of their predecessors is clear and will be demonstrated below. 20 References to other authors are frequent, although explicit citation is rare and used to con-fer authority.21 To what extent the audience could be expected to recognize and appreciate the allusion can never be answered fully, but several assump-tions can be made. The orators of the Panegyrici Latini were for the most part teachers of rhetoric. It is very likely that these speeches were copied and circulated as teaching models, which would have given students and their teachers ample time to study their literary references. The fact that the authors were teachers makes it more likely that the allusions were taken from a famil-iar body of knowledge. The audience for the panegyrics would have shared the same education and studied the same texts. Even if they did not instantly recognize an intertextual reference, the generic resonance of the allusion and its connotations of Roman imperial authority or of didactic moralizing could give authority to the speaker and prime the audience for a positive reception of his message.

Praising Two Emperors: Maximian and Constantine in Pan. Lat. 7(6)The marriage of Constantine to Fausta and his elevation to Augustus sig-nalled a reorganization of power in the Tetrarchy and a potential challenge to the existing structure. This was an alliance between a retired emperor who wanted to return to power and a young emperor who needed formal acknowl-edgement. Constantine had been acclaimed Augustus by the army in York on the death of his father Constantius in 306, but was recognized only as Caesar by the imperial college. In 307, Maximian had emerged from retirement to support his son Maxentius, who had seized power in Rome. To strengthen his own position, Maximian raised Constantine to Augustus and gave him his daughter Fausta in marriage.22 The panegyric of 307 is ostensibly in honor of this wedding and Constantine’s elevation, but the orator must also welcome

20 The extent of intertextuality varies between the speeches. Nazarius’ knowledge of the earlier orations is questionable, but Pacatus’ debt is very evident: Pichon 1906, 286–9; Rees 2012, 27–8. The work of Kilian 1869, 41; Brandt 1882; Seeck 1888; and Klotz 1911, for example, which was directed towards discovering common authorship of the speeches, has proved extremely useful in fi nding intertextual connections between the speeches; on this theory see more recently Enenkel 2000, 93 and De Beer 2005, 314–6. See also Colombo 2007, 500–1.

21 There are explicit references to Ennius (Pan. Lat. 11(3)16.3) and Vergil (11(3)14.2; 12(9)12.3), also to Cicero 12(9)19.5. On the presence of Vergil in the Panegyrici Latini, see Rees 2004. On Cicero, see Klotz 1911. For other authors, see Rees 2011, 181.

22 See Odahl 2004, 89; Lenski 2006, 61–4; Barnes 2011.



the return to power of the veteran Maximian.23 Praising two emperors of unequal status in a single panegyric may have been a challenge, but the anon-ymous orator handles it with aplomb and successfully contrasts the youth-ful potential of Constantine with the experienced rulership and maiestas of Maximian.

At the outset the two emperors are praised for sharing the greatest vir-tues, summae virtutes (7(6)1.1) and for their pietas, concordia, maiestas, and divinitas (divinity), but the crucial diff erence between them is then promptly summed up already in the exordium. Maximian is hailed as velis nolis sem-per Auguste (Augustus forever, whether you like it or not) while Constan-tine is an oriens imperator (1.1).24 Oriens, rising, is the key to this speech, and Constantine’s youth is his outstanding characteristic: prima iuventa (fi rst youth, 3.3.), pueritia (boyhood, 4.1), iuvenis (youth, 4.1), and adulescentia (youth, 4.2). The fi rst virtues given to Constantine all relate to his youthful sexual morality and his consequent desire for an early marriage.25 Constan-tine’s continentia is praised (4.1) as is his bashfulness (verecundia, 4.1) and his refusal to yield to the pleasures granted to youth (concessis aetati volupta-tibus, 4.1). By concentrating on the past, the orator succeeds in imposing the image of a very young Constantine onto the mature Augustus of reality. As the speaker turns his attention from Constantine to Maximian, he leaves the audience with the image of Constantine as a handsome boy, puer, the subject of a painting of his youthful betrothal to Fausta. His outward pulchritudo (6.4) is a refl ection of his inner beauty.26

In this early panegyric there is no opportunity of viewing Constantine as a mature Augustus. He does possess virtues suited to ruling an empire, but these, like his physical features, are inherited explicitly from his father,27 with continentia (restraint) foregrounded and the canonic imperial virtues, fortitudo, iustitia, and prudentia (prudence) given little scope (3.4). On the military front, the best Constantine can do is to imitate his father. While Constantius tamed the barbarians with victoria, and tempered this with venia (pardon), his son merely held them at bay through their fear of his alacritas (4.3), his eagerness in this context adding another layer of youthfulness to the imperial portrait. The orator skips over the absence of real military perfor-

23 On this speech as an example of Constantinian propaganda and evidence of Constantine’s superior position, see Grünewald 1990, 26–7 and the counterargument of Nixon 1993, 235–8.

24 See also the contrast between Maximian as the eternal emperor, aeternus imperator, and Constantine as a newcomer, imperator novus at 7(6)13.3.

25 Rather confusingly, this is not his marriage to Fausta but an earlier marriage to Minervina.26 Smith 1997, 200.27 Grünewald 1990, 27. On the parallels between father and son in art and panegyric, see Mac-

Cormack 1981, 179–80; Smith 1997, 184–5.



mance to say that in his precocity Constantine surpasses Scipio Africanus and Pompey (5.3). He is an imperator adulescens (youthful emperor, 5.3) whose gravitas (dignity) and maturitas (maturity) outstrip his age (5.3). The empha-sis is excessive. Praise of an honorand’s father is an acknowledged category of a panegyrical discourse, and it may be given particular weight when the hon-orand is a child,28 but the Constantine of 7(6) is at least in his mid-twenties and an experienced general.29

Constantine’s purported youth and inexperience allow the orator to pass quickly to the main theme of the panegyric, the praise of Maximian for com-ing out of retirement. While Constantine is young and beautiful, the senior Augustus is physically imposing in a diff erent way, showing bodily strength, corporis vigor, and fi re in his eyes, ardor oculorum (9.5). His maturitas (13.5) is not the precocious virtue displayed by Constantine, and his auctoritas (authority) is innate (10.4). So too is his maiestas (majesty, 12.4) that explicitly exceeds that of his junior partner (3.2, 3.3, 7.2) and, after pietas, is the most prominent virtue in this panegyric. Emphasized throughout the speech (9.6, 11.4), this quality links Maximian with the personifi ed Roma who invites him to return to power out of concern for her own maiestas (10.5). The array of virtues that Maximian possesses promise peace and prosperity to his people. In his care of the empire he shows providentia (foresight, 7.2, 12.1), pietas (7.4, 11.5), and animi magnitudo (greatness of spirit, 7.5). He gives stabilitas (stability, 10.2) and fi rmitas (fi rmness, 10.2), and lavishes largitio (generosity, 7.3) and indulgentia (indulgence, 7.3) all of which result in continua felicitas (uninterupted good fortune, 10.1). The argument that his retirement was pre-mature and wrong is well-supported. The speech ends with congratulations to Maximian and the late Constantius on their future grandchildren, praise of Maximian for choosing such a promising young man as his son-in-law, and felicitations on the pietas (13.3), concordia (13.3), and felicitas (14.3) that this alliance brings.

Constantine as Single Augustus: Pan. Lat. 6(7)By the time 6(7) was delivered in the summer of 310, great changes had taken place in the imperial college. Having tried to seize power, Maximian had been defeated by Constantine at Marseille, and although offi cially pardoned, he had died suspiciously very shortly afterwards.30 For Constantine, the earlier

28 Men. Rhet. 2.370. The praise of Theodosius, for example, occupies a considerable part of Claudian’s panegyrics on Honorius’ third and fourth consulships. On Honorius’ virtues in Clau-dian’s panegyrics, see most recent McEvoy 2013, 163–6.

29 Constantine may have been born as early as 273 ce, see Odahl 2004, 15–16, Barnes 2011, 38.30 For this period, see Lenski 2006, 62–6.



affi liation with Tetrarchic principles and his elevation to power by Maximian were now an embarrassment. In their place the orator of 310 attributes Con-stantine’s dynastic entitlement to power to his status as the appointed heir of his father, the chosen one of the gods, and, almost defi nitely spuriously, the descendant of Claudius II.31 The orator presents himself as a capable man of middle age (1.1), one who deliberates before he speaks (1.3) and who adopts a rather fatherly tone towards the emperor, chiding him for his youthful errors (8.4). This represents a skilful continuation of the tone of the earlier panegyric and gives authority to the unexpected assertions he makes in the course of the speech.

Constantine’s entitlement to power is only the fi rst of these assertions. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of Maximian’s role in his elevation, and the criticism of the veteran emperor himself is carefully qualifi ed. A damnatio memoriae would never be part of Constantine’s policy and Maxi-mian would later be rehabilitated.32 Rather, in the speech of 310, the orator, having fi rst asked permission from the emperor, summarizes the events and gives, in comparison with the earlier panegyric, a careful rewriting of Maxi-mian’s place in Constantine’s history that transfers Maximian’s virtues to his ex–son-in-law. The technique is simple. Constantine, the quasi-adolescent of 307, comes of age. He remains the imperator adulescens (6(7).17.1), a characteristic of his public persona for the rest of his reign,33 but he has also acquired the qualities that characterized Maximian’s prime. The cor-poris vigor and ardor oculorum (7(6).9.5) have passed to the younger man who impresses his soldiers with the brightness of his gaze, fulgor oculorum (6(7).17.1), and who, ironically on campaign against Maximian, toils vigore corporis (18.5). As he has grown up, Maximian has grown old. Constan-tine’s charmingly youthful refusal to accept imperium on his father’s death is the error of youth, adulescentiae errore (9.4); by contrast, Maximian’s desire to abandon his now timely retirement (15.1) is the mistake of senility, error iam desipientis aetatis (15.2). The natural auctoritas of Maximian, which remained with him even as a private citizen in the earlier panegyric, now appears in Constantine as dignitas and dignatio (dignity) (23.1) as he

31 How Constantine could be descended from Claudius II is not clear. The references in the Historia Augusta are generally vague although Constantius is described as Claudius’ nephew at Cl. 9.9 and at Jer.Chron. 290–1, and as the grandson by Eutr. 9.22, cf. Stephenson 2009, 3–4; Müller-Rettig 1990, 53. On the timing of this claim, see Lenski 2006, 66.

32 Barnes 2011, 74.33 Constantine’s portraits in this period suggest the youth and beauty of Alexander and Augus-

tus, Smith 1997 184–6; Bardill 2012, 11. Alexander is a model for Constantine in this panegyric (17.2) and Augustus, as Rodgers 1980, 269–74 argues, is present intertextually in Constantine’s vision of Apollo (21.4).



too protects the state with salus and securitas (security). Largitio is likewise transferred, both in the transferred sense of the sharing of his personal quali-ties (7(6)7.3/6(7).16.8) and in the sense of largesse, for Constantine’s present and future liberalitas towards the cities of Gaul are a very signifi cant part of the speech. In other words, the people of Gaul may be assured (without actu-ally being told so) that although they have lost Maximian, everything good about him will be continued in the person of Constantine.

The criticism of Maximian and the transfer of his virtues to Constantine are not surprising. What is less expected is the treatment of Constantius, who was the source of virtually all of Constantine’s virtues in the earlier speech and who is initially the subject of a mini-laudatio in this oration; in 310, Con-stantine still needed the background of his father’s popularity. The descrip-tion of Constantine’s inheritance of personal beauty and virtue, “impressed on your countenance as if marked by Nature” (ut signante natura vultibus tuis impressa videatur, 6(7).4.3), echoes the earlier panegyric—“in whose face Nature had marked his [Constantius’] heavenly countenance” (in cuius ore caelestes illius vultus Natura signauit, 7(6).3.3).34 Their faces shine with gravitas, tranquillitas (peacefulness), the blush of modestia, and the speech of iustitia. Accept the truth, says the panegyrist, we cannot grieve over the loss of Constantius because he is present in his son (4.5). The speech continues with a recapitulation of Constantius’ campaigns in Britain and against the Franks.35 In Britain, Constantius shows a cluster of related virtues, virtus, cle-mentia, misericordia (pity), temperantia, iustitia, and providentia (6(7).5.3–6.1). He shows appropriate fi rmness in dealing with the Franks, either killing them or relocating them so that they may serve the land and the army (6.2–4), but his character is established as temperate and merciful. The fi nal part of a lengthy praeteritio summarizes Constantius’ victories over the Lingones at Vindonissa and on the Rhine. A very high standard has been set for Constan-tine in terms of actions and character, but the fi eld is fi nally cleared for him to establish himself. The mini-panegyric on Constantius ends with his death and apotheosis: he leaves the scene as the divine Constantius Pius, informing Jupiter that he wants his son to succeed him.

Transition from father to son is marked with the question imperatoris igi-tur fi lius et tanti imperatoris . . . quomodo rem publicam vindicare coepisti? (10.1). Nixon and Rodgers translate this as “son of an emperor (and a very

34 This passage is also strongly reminiscent of the virtues that adorn the countenance of Con-stantius in 8(5)19.3. See Klotz 1911, 558–9 on parallels between the two panegyrics.

35 The campaign in Britain in this panegyric draws on the fuller version of 8(5)6.1–2, cf. Janson 1984, 21.



great one at that) how did you begin to defend the state”36 but “how did you begin to claim the state for your own?” is more accurate. This sentence also marks the transition to war. From here on, the panegyric focuses on Con-stantine’s military prowess and it is immediately apparent that the victories of Constantius were only a backdrop for Constantine’s superior successes. While Constantius had killed many thousands (multa . . . milia . . . interfecit, 7(6).4.2), Constantine outdoes these with countless numbers slaughtered, the greatest number captured (caesi igitur innumerabiles, capti plurimi 6(7).12.3) and goes on to destroy fl ocks and villages and to dispose of all young men of the tribe by military service, slavery, or as victims of public entertainment in the games (12.3). Like his father, Constantine is also described by a cluster of virtues that relate to his military ability: severitas twice, clementia, virtus, fortitudo (in the presence of fortis) and he restores fi ducia to Roman impe-rium (10.2–5). The language of barbarian extermination—killing, devasta-tion, butchery, and death (caesi, clades, trucidatum, necabantur)—as well as punishment—suff ering, torture, punishment, trampling, imprisonment, enchainment (supplicia, cruciatibus , poena, calcat, in carcerem, in vinculis) may strike modern readers as savage,37 and the orator himself would appear to question the emperor’s severity. The treatment of the Franks may demon-strate Constantine’s virtues, but these virtues are qualifi ed and the qualifi ca-tions highlighted in a series of sententiae or quasi-aphorisms:

Severitas (10.3): “If an emperor can protect his actions, why should he con-cern himself with hostility arising from his righteous severity?” (Cur enim ullam reputet iustae severitatis off ensam imperator qui quod fecit tueri potest?)

Clementia (10.4): “Clemency is secure insofar as it spares enemies and pro-tects its own interests rather than pardoning them” (Tuta clementia est quae parcit inimicis et sibi magis prospicit quam ignoscit.) 38

Virtus (10.4): “For this is true courage, that they do not love you but remain quiet.” (Haec est enim vera virtus, ut non ament et quiescant.)

Venia and fortitudo (10.4): “The more careful man keeps his enemies bound by pardon, the stronger man tramples them in their anger.” (Cautior licet sit qui devinctos habet venia perduelles, fortior tamen est qui calcat iratos.)

36 Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 232.37 See, for example, Maguinness 1933, 122; Nixon and Rogers 1994, 238 n. 64.38 The sense is not entirely clear here and the text is disputed, with stulta suggested as a very

plausible alternative to tuta. This is the translation of Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 223.



Grouping these virtues together makes them the canon that distinguishes Constantine’s military personality. It is, without question, a brutal one that redefi nes clementia as self-interest, rejects venia as cautious, and privileges qualities that could inspire hatred and anger—severitas, virtus, fortitudo.

Nevertheless, caution is required. Severitas, which heads the list and is the source from which the other virtues spring, was a prized and frequently lauded imperial virtue that could refer to the quelling of insurrection or to the resto-ration of military discipline.39 In this latter context, it links Constantine with his putative ancestor Claudius II who is praised for restoring lost discipline to the army.40 Although severitas is not one of the more likeable virtues and is here juxtaposed with scenes of slaughter and mass extermination, its presence in a panegyric is not unusual. Secondly, it must be emphasized that the victims of Constantine’s severitas are barbarians. The extermination of barbarians was one of the ways by which the Romans imposed peace, and such vocabu-lary, without explanation or apology, is common in the other panegyrics and in histories: the passage describing the slaughter of the Bructeri has much in common with Tacitus’ descriptions of Germanicus’ campaigns in Germany.41 The people of Gaul, who had suff ered greatly from barbarian invasions dur-ing the third century, would not have felt any sympathy for the Franks.42

Even with these reservations, it is signifi cant that severitas is the fi rst qual-ity in the panegyric that Constantine does not inherit from his father, and the cynical redefi nition of the canonical virtus and clementia in the shadow of severitas is not meant to go unremarked. The orator demands attention when he justifi es the wholesale destruction of Constantine’s enemies by the tag ode-rint hostes, dum perhorrescant (let my enemies hate me, as long as they fear me, 10.4), a paraphrase of the notorious words of Accius, oderint dum metu-ant.43 This was the phrase, according to Seneca, which was evoked by tyrants

39 Litchfi eld 1914, 9.40 In the Panegyrici Latini, Trajan’s provida severitas (forward-looking severity) takes takes

actions against brigands (latrones, 34.1); also against violators of the treasury (36.3); disciplines the mime actors (46.5); but it is always gentle (mitis, 80.1). Pacatus sees severitas as the virtue of a father taking pains with his sons (2(12).8.2) and, the equivalent of duritia (20.5), a virtue of the leaders of old (cf. 39.4).

41 Tac. An. 1.56, cf. for example, Caes.BG 6.43. In the Panegyrici Latini, cf. the slaughter of all the Chaibones and Eruli (10(2).5.4), and the grim sentencing of barbarians to the arena, for Roman pleasure, ad nostrum omnium voluptatem (12.9.23.3). See also Alföldi 1952, 8–9.

42 As Rosso 2008, 162 has observed of the portrayal of barbarians in art, by this period the dignifi ed barbarian as worthy opponent has vanished and the barbarian exists only to be humbled and subdued, cf. Burns 2003, 292. The language applied to barbarians (immanitas, inhumanity, feritas) is the same used of animals.

43 The line was paraphrased by Ennius in his Thyestes as quem metuont oderunt (cited in Cic. Off ., 2.23, cf. 1.97, see also Sest., 102, Phil. 1.34. See Müller-Rettig 1990, 156.



in self-justifi cation, and was most famously used by Caligula.44 The boast that the terror of Constantine’s name protects the empire, nominis tui ter-rore munimur (we are protected by the terror of your name, 6(7).11.1), recalls Pliny’s similar characterization of the tyrannical Domitian, plurimo terrore munierat (he had protected himself with the greatest terror, 1(1.48.3). The implication is that Constantine’s severitas has gone too far and has crossed into crudelitas (cruelty). That Constantine is erring on the side of excess is suggested by the orator’s reassurance to the contrary: gratulare, Constantine, naturae ac moribus tuis quod te talem Constantius Pius genuit, talem side-rum decreta formarunt, ut crudelis esse non possis (give thanks, Constantine, for your nature and character, that Constantius Pius fathered you so, that the decrees of stars shaped you so, that you cannot be cruel, 14.4).

Constantine’s rule of terror is eff ective. The Franks do not cross the Rhine because they can hope neither for victoria nor venia (11.3). The juxtaposition of these qualities recalls the panegyric of 307 and Constantius’ triumph over unspecifi ed barbarians: “he tamed them with victory, he tempered it with pardon” (victoria domuit, venia mitigauit , 7(6).4.4). Venia is what Constan-tine has twice rejected in this section, a rejection that distinguishes son from father. Constantius had been severe but he also displayed gentleness and in this panegyric showed clementia (5.3). He had tempered victory with mercy (misericordia, 6.1), and had recalled the culpable to repentance with impunity (impunitas, 6.1). When the two models of leadership are put side by side,45 the audience seems to be asked to admire a son who rejects the mercy shown by his father, who prides himself on slaughter, and who models himself on the tyrants of old like Caligula and Domitian. Is this severitas really just or is it a euphemism for savagery and an implicit criticism of the emperor?46

The question of Constantine’s divergence from his father’s model is care-fully positioned in the panegyric. The focus will quickly change to the ingrati-tude of Maximian, Constantine’s reluctance to act against his father-in-law, and fi nally praise of his singularis pietas (unusual sense of duty) and clem-entia (20.1) in the campaign against Maximian. At the siege of Marseille he even defers victory so that he might bestow his forgiveness on all, fearing lest his own soldiers should take vengeance into their own hands and act in a

44 Sen. Clem. 1.12.4; Suet. Cal. 30.45 Comparison seems to be the orator’s intention, Seager 1983, 145–6.46 The discussion of coded speech in imperial discourse has generated a considerable amount of

literature. See, for example, Ahl 1984; Bartsch 1994; Whitmarsh 2005, 57–73. While this argu-ment may be valid for certain authors and texts, I do not fi nd any evidence of criticism in the Pan-egyrici Latini (excepting the mock-criticism as noted, for example, by Pichon 1906, 64. I take it as axiomatic for the Panegyrici Latini that as ceremonial panegyrics they are intended to praise the emperor; accordingly, whatever the emperor does is praiseworthy.



manner unpleasing to his clementia (20.1). But that is later. The description of Constantine’s stern virtues is literally and fi guratively central to the pan-egyric, and the intertextual parallels clearly delineate the diff erence between father and son. The fact that the virtues themselves are qualifi ed and redefi ned invites the listener to pay close attention to them and to question both the nature of the individual virtues and their role in governing an empire. Two related didactic models underpin this section as the orator draws on didactic texts and techniques familiar to his audience from their schooldays.

Panegyric and ProtrepticTo some extent every panegyric functions as a speculum principis, a mir-ror of kingly behavior. This is one of the aims of Pliny’s Panegyricus, which states that in a panegyric, good rulers should recognize what they have done and bad rulers learn what they should do,47 a technique that Erasmus would describe as correcting under the guise of fl attery.48 A panegyrist could not presume to lecture an emperor directly, and certainly by the time of the Tet-rarchy, the ceremonial distance between orator and emperor, citizen and god-like ruler, was too great for such presumption.49 Nevertheless, it was possible to present a model of rulership and hope that the emperor would pay atten-tion. Diff erent approaches were possible. Moralizing passages or sententiae on the nature of good government are a feature of panegyric. Emperors of the past or challengers of the present could serve as exemplars: Pliny draws the portrait of the tyrannical Domitian as a warning, his vices being the direct opposite of Trajan’s virtues, while the usurper Maxentius is presented as the dark refl ection of Constantine. 50 Under certain circumstances, the emperor could even be instructed directly: in his panegyric addressed to the young emperor Honorius, Claudian attributes a long speech on the nature of good government to the emperor’s father, Theodosius.51 The circumstances of 6(7) make this technique possible. The theme of the fi rst half of the speech, Con-stantine’s dynastic right to rule and the early fl exing of his power, are top-ics particularly amenable to a speculum principis. Further, as discussed, the emperor’s persona in this panegyric is that of a young man of tremendous energy and ability, but one who is perhaps rather impetuous, even rash, while

47 Pan. Lat. 1(1).4.1; cf. Plin. Ep. 3.18.2; for the panegyric as a speculum principis, see Born 1934; Braund 1988; Pernot 2000, 180–1.

48 On his panegyric to Philip, he argues that no method of correcting rulers is as eff ective as the appearance of praise, sub laudandi specie, (Ep. 179.42–4); Born 1934, 35.

49 See, for example, Pichon 1906, 43.50 Pan. Lat. 1(1)3.4, 47–49, cf. Noreña 2011, 38; Pan. Lat. 12(9).4.3–5.51 Claud. Quart. cons. Hon. 216–419. On Claudian’s debt to Pliny and Dio Chrysostom in this

speech, see Ware 2013.



the orator is a calm middle-aged man with, as he mentions at the end, a son of Constantine’s age. For him to take on, if only by allusion, the role of philoso-pher or tutor to the young ruler is an easy step.52

The orator’s model is Seneca, philosopher and tutor of Nero, and his sources are the dialogues between the character of Seneca and Nero in the Octavia and Seneca’s own advice to Nero in the De clementia.53 The paral-lels between Constantine and Nero, although never made explicit, are con-textually appropriate. Constantine, the orator asserts, has inherited power by descent through the divine Claudius II and as the eldest son of Constantius (6(7). 2.1, 4.1, 7.3) and is therefore the third in his family line to rule: post duos familiae tuae principes tertius imperator (2.4). Later the panegyrist also por-trays Constantine as a successor to Augustus by using Vergilian allusion and, more specifi cally, referencing his choice of Apollo as his new divine patron.54 The orator dutifully extols the virtues of dynastic succession (3.1–4.1), but not only is this a clear rejection of Tetrarchic ideology; the failures of the system were well known and Caligula, one of the conspicuous failures, appears later in this panegyric not merely as a bad example, an idle emperor (princeps otiosus, 13.4), but one whose epithet, the third Caesar from Augustus, (ab Augusto tertius Caesar, 13.4), suggests a parallel for Constantine, the third from Claudius II. Here it should be recalled that a more worrying connec-tion to Caligula had also been made earlier through the allusion to Accius. A dynastic heir in this mold, whose natural inclination is severitas, may indeed seem in need of advice, and the orator, looking back to earlier didactic models of kingship, casts himself as Seneca in the Octauia.

These allusions to Caligula also set up the panegyrist’s recasting of Con-stantine as Nero. The imperium, granted by the gods to Constantine through dynastic succession, is described as a gift of the immortal gods (munus immortalium deorum, 3.2). This is how Nero in the Octavia had defi ned his inheritance in a line that comes at the end of an interchange between Nero and Seneca, although his words are more explicit and arrogant: “it is the gift of the gods, that Rome herself and the senate serve me” (munus deorum est, ipsa quod servit mihi/Roma et senatus ).55 Nero has entered the scene, giving orders for executions, the classic behavior of a tyrant from Greek and Roman

52 Tutor to pupil or father to son are standard models in kingship literature. See, for example, Philip’s instructions to Alexander in Dio Chrysostom’s Kingship Orations.

53 On the authorship of the Octavia, see Ferri 2008, 5–9. The De clementia is not a panegyric but, as Braund 2009, 105 describes it, a hybrid between a philosophical disquisition on the virtues of the ideal ruler and a didactic treatise addressed to a new ruler. Much of this philosophy is appar-ent in the Octavia.

54 Rodgers 1980; Rodgers 1989, 233–46.55 Octavia, 492–3.



tragedy.56 The stichomythic interchange between the young emperor and his adviser illustrates the divide between the ideal virtues that a ruler should dis-play and the qualities that the demands of government may require.

As tutor and philosopher, Seneca advises clemency as the cure for fear (magnum timoris remedium clementia est, 442), but Nero replies, “to destroy the enemy is a leader’s greatest virtue” (extinguere hostem maxima est virtus ducis, 443). The emphatic maxima est virtus would appear to be picked up by the panegyric’s haec est enim vera virtus. Seneca reminds Nero of his seething youth (fervida adolescentia, 446) that needs to be governed, but Nero replies that he is wise enough and a few lines later asserts the need for terror: “the crowd tramples on the indecisive one . . . a Caesar should be feared” (calcat iacentem vulgus . . . decet timeri Caesarem, 455, 457). Compare the pan-egyrist’s aphorism quoted earlier: “The more careful man keeps his enemies bound by pardon, the stronger man tramples them in their anger” (cautior licet sit qui devinctos habet venia perduelles, fortior tamen est qui calcat iratos, 6(7).10.4), where cautior corresponds to iacentem,57 and caution is rejected by an emperor who came to power as an adulescens (8.4).

Seneca counters with praise for the peaceful ways of Augustus, saying that to give peace is the greatest virtue, dare / orbi quietem, saeculo pacem suo. / haec summa virtus (474–6). Yet this advice would seem to be rejected in yet another of the panegyric’s aphorisms: “For this is true courage, that they do not love you but remain quiet” (haec est enim vera virtus, ut non ament et quiescant, 10.4). It is also what is explicitly spurned by Nero, who looks at the career of Augustus which, like that of Constantine, involves the deaths of many, and asks how many men, young and old, he killed in his rise to power.58 The wording, viros / quot interemit nobiles, iuvenes senes / sparsos per orbem . . . (how many nobles, young men and old, did he destroy, scat-tered through the world, Octavia 505–7), suggests Constantine’s own policy of extermination, caesi igitur innumerabiles, capti plurimi (6(7).12.3). Only when Augustus was victorious and tired of killing did he put away his sword and even then he continued to rule by fear (continuit imperium metus, Octa-via 526). Nero planned to live likewise (530–2).

Fleshed out in this way, the extended allusion indicates a very subversive panegyric replete with latent condemnations of Constantine as a tyrant along the lines of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian, one whose actions have already proved his character. But the intertext is more complex still, and the fi gure of Augustus, an exemplum both for Nero and for Constantine, requires further

56 Ferri 2003, 248–9.57 Ferri 2003, 258 translates iacentem as “indecisive.”58 Octavia, 504–24.



attention. Nero’s point regarding Augustus’ cruelty was valid and is addressed, although less cynically, in Seneca’s De clementia.59 Seneca admits Augus-tus’ youthful taste for slaughter, his passionate youth (in adulescentia caluit, 1.11.1), obviously akin to Nero’s fervida adulescentia (Octauia 446). Seneca agrees with the Nero of Octavia that Augustus stopped killing only when victorious, but Seneca refuses to equate clemency with exhausted cruelty (cle-mentiam non uoco lassam crudelitatem, Clem. 1.11.2). Instead he says that Augustus himself in old age looked back with regret on the actions of his hot-headed youth (1.11.1). In the exemplum of Augustus’ forgiveness of Cinna (1.9), Seneca shows how Augustus turned towards clementia, an episode which, as Braund argues, represents the transition between his blood-stained past and his later reputation for mildness.60 The story also shows that Augus-tus was willing to take advice, in this case from his wife Livia, and that his clementia had practical value since Cinna became his most loyal friend and named Augustus as his heir (1.9.11). By the end of his reign Augustus had become genuinely a gentle ruler (mitis princeps, 1.9.1), in compliance with Seneca’s defi nition of the good ruler: as gods should be gentle to men, so a ruler should rule with gentle spirit (miti animo exercere imperium, 1.7.2).

Similarly, over the course of the panegyric, Constantine moves from emo-tional adulescentia to the steadiness of maturity, showing himself the fi rm and eternal guardian of empire (hic fi rmus, hic aeternus est rei publicae custos, 6(7).16.6). His transition from severitas to clementia is marked by a long pas-sage describing the love that his soldiers have for him (16.2–17.4). The orator does not draw the moral, but he does not need to: it is a common sententia of panegyric that a bad ruler fortifi es himself by fear, a good one is protected by the love of his people.61 Once the battle is over and Maximian defeated, Constantine demonstrates proper clementia towards Roman soldiers whom he pardons for their support of Maximian (20.1), sparing even those who do not deserve it, non merentibus pepercisti (20.3). In allowing them time to repent, he shows that he measures up to the exemplary emperors of the past with the con-cern of an excellent emperor (optimi imperatoris sollicitudine) and most gentle

59 Although Augustus would be remembered in connection with the golden age of peace, authors did not conceal his brutality during the civil war. Suet. Aug. 116–17 describes his harsh punish-ment of defeated opponents, and Aeneas’ sacrifi ce of the sons of Sulmo is usually interpreted as a parallel for Augustus’ sacrifi ce of prisoners after Perusia, Virg. Aen. 10.517–20 with Williams 1973, 356. After the civil war, however, he deliberately made clementia rather than crudelitas his policy. In discussing the transformation from the crudelitas of Octavian to the clementia of Augus-tus, Dowling 2006, 29 argues that this was a response to the increasing importance of clementia in the Roman world. Her discussion of Cicero’s writings and the politics of the late Republic (29–75) demonstrates that clementia could be an unsound policy in times of crisis.

60 Braund 2009, 258.61 E.g. Pan.Lat.1(1).49.2–3, 2(12).47.3, Claud. Quart. cons. Hon. 281–2.



emotions (mitissimos sensus, 20.2). The orator’s clustering of Constantine’s vir-tues also emphasize his innate goodness: pietas twice, venia (pardon), bonitas (goodness), benefi cium (kindness), conscientia (conscience) (20).

The passage, therefore, may be taken more as a speculum tyranni than a speculum principis, and Nero, Caligula, and Domitian are given as examples of what is to be avoided. These were rulers who indulged in the bad side of harshness, crudelitas rather than severitas. Their presence in the panegyric, whether explicit or intertextual, reminds the listener of what cruelty really is. By contrast, Constantine’s severitas, which might seem to be verging on the extreme, cannot be so defi ned and may also be excused on several grounds: that he is young, that he is dealing with barbarians, that Augustus did likewise in his youth and turned out well in his old age. Within the panegyric itself there is the reassuring fact that Constantine has already turned out well and will show the good qualities of the mature and merciful ruler for the rest of the speech.

Severitas and clementiaOne question remains to be addressed. Constantine may be diff erent from the tyrants but he is also diff erent from his father, the merciful Constantius Pius. The severitas of the son stands in sharp contrast to the clementia, venia, and misericordia displayed by the father. The case could be made that the orator intends criticism of one at the expense of the other, but both the text and the conventions of panegyric forbid this. As subject of the panegyric, Constan-tine’s actions are by defi nition laudable. Constantius is also beyond criticism. In death, he has joined the gods and the epithet Pius is given to him after his apotheosis, emphasizing his divinity and moral excellence. As the divine Constantius Pius, he represents the ideal of rulership, and even if the orator’s reassurance—“Constantius sired you of such a nature that you could not be cruel” (te talem Constantius Pius genuit . . . ut crudelis non possis, 14.5)—does not initially dispel doubt regarding Constantine’s character, there is no denying that his father represents the antithesis of crudelitas.

The key lies in the nature of the virtues themselves, severitas and clem-entia, and the tension between the two. They are in fact related and Seneca’s defi nitions of both in the De clementia examine their strengths and weak-nesses. Clementia cannot properly be translated simply as mercy. Seneca dis-tinguishes it from qualities which, generally speaking, are synonymous: mercy (misericordia, 2.4.4–2.6.4), mildness (mansuetudo, 1.7.2), moderation (mod-eratio,1.2.20), indulgence and gentleness (indulgentia, lenitas, 2.3.1), or par-don (venia, 2.7.1, 2.7.3). None of these are the equivalent of true clementia,62

62 For these as syonyms, see Cic. Marc., 9; Konstan 2005, 341.



and neither are actions denoted by sparing (parcere 1.1.4, 1.5.1, 2.7.2) or forgiving (ignoscere, 2.7.3).63 In the opinion of Cicero and Valerius Maximus, true clementia is a sign of humanitas (humanity) and temperantia,64 but for a Stoic it has a built-in fl aw as it signifi es forgiveness for a crime and in this sense undermines abstract iustitia. Clementia demonstrates the emperor’s power, superiority, and whim.65 To the recipient, forgiveness is naturally a virtue, but it may not necessarily serve the overall good, being a sign of pity rather than mercy, misericordia not clementia. For Seneca at least, misericordia is not a virtue but a weakness, the vice that corresponds to clementia (2.4.1–2). For the greater good, sometimes severitas must be preferred.

In the case of severitas, Seneca’s defi nition is not always consistent, but overall he argues that as it corresponds to discipline and justice. Severitas is a complementary virtue to clementia, not its opposite as might otherwise be argued.66 The opposite of severitas, its corresponding vice, is crudelitas, but the boundary between the two was often blurred and severitas, a char-acteristic of a naturally stern nature, seems particularly prone to abuse.67 The biography of the emperor Aurelian, for example, shows how absolute power enables the transition. Aurelian was hailed initially as a most severe emperor (severatissimum imperatorum, and despite his many excellent quali-ties, he was naturally prone to violence (natura ferocior).68 His suppression of a revolt suggested the behavior of a tyrant since he punished off ences that would have been pardoned by a more gentle emperor (a mitiore principe.69 Severity is expected against the enemy, but Aurelian went too far so that his subjects could not distinguish between crudelitas and severitas.70

Even when severitas does not lapse into its opposite, it is an unattractive virtue. Valerius Maximus opens his introduction to De severitate with the warning, “the heart must arm itself with hardness while acts of harsh, grim severity are related,”71 and indeed, the actions of Mucius who burned his

63 Braund 2009, 39.64 Cic. Inv. 2.164, with Wallace-Hadrill 1981, 302; Val. Max. 5 treats humanitas and clementia

together.65 Sen. Clem., 2.31; see Konstan 2005.66 Sen. Clem. 2.4.1, cf. 1.22.2, 1.15.6. For Seneca’s inconsistency see 1.1.4 and 1.9.6 where

severitas is the opposite of clementia, cf. Braund 2009, 167–8.67 In some instances, the faults resulting were trivial: a surfeit of severitas, in the sense of gravi-

tas, leads only to tristitia (gloom, Cic. Brut. 97, 113); this is the gentle severitas of Julian at Pan. Lat. 3(11).16.2) and of Trajan, a quality that can be livened by hilaritas, Pan.Lat. 1(1).4.6.

68 SHA Aur.1.5; 21.5.69 SHA Aur. 21.6.70 SHA Aur. 31.4: crudelitas denique Aureliani vel, ut quidam dicunt, severitas eatenus exstitit.71 Val. Max. 6.3: armet se duritia pectus necesse est, dum horridae ac tristis severitatis acta

narrantur.



colleagues alive, Horatius who murdered his sister, and Egnatius Mecennius who beat his wife to death for drinking wine are not for the squeamish.72 Valerius Maximus fi nds it necessary to justify the inclusion of some of these exempla. He grants that wine drinking is a lesser fault than poisoning, but it was universally agreed that the woman deserved this punishment. In the case of a shepherd crucifi ed for possessing a hunting spear, Valerius accepts that this may be thought to border on cruelty but the demands of public authority (ratio publici imperii) make it acceptable.73

An emperor needed to exercise both mercy and discipline but the balance was not easy to achieve and indeed seemed characteristic of diff erent person-alities.74 Pliny’s panegyric summed up the dichotomy: “in all your inquiries, how gentle your severity, how fi rm your mercy.”75 Both qualities are nec-essary to a ruler but fi rmness and mercy may demand diff erent courses of action. This moral dilemma was utterly familiar to every educated Roman who had been trained in such evaluation through the rhetorical progymnas-mata of the schoolroom. Put simply, as a standard part of their rhetorical education, students had to argue both sides of a question and tease out all the moral complexities and contradictions that might be involved.76 Characters from myth or history whose stories were well known often featured in these dilemmas: Should Agamemnon sacrifi ce Iphigeneia? Should Cicero burn his work in exchange for his life?77 The dialogue between Nero and Seneca in the Octauia suggests this type of moral debate and could be taken as an examina-tion of the diff erence between earned and inherited power, good rulers and tyrants, and the most eff ective means of obtaining one’s end. The questions in this panegyric are related. When is severitas justifi ed and when does it slip

72 Val. Max. 6.3.2, 6, 9.73 Val. Max. 6.3.5.74 Cf. Sall. Cat. 54.2 comparing Caesar and Cato, Caesar benefi ciis ac munifi centia magnus

habebatur, integritate vitae Cato. Ille mansuetudine et misericordia clarus factus, huic severitas dignitatem addiderat.

75 Pan. Lat. 1(1).80.1: in omnibus cognitionibus, quam mitis severitas, quam non dissoluta clementia

76 For controversiae as an integral part of Roman education, see Kennedy 1994, 166–72.Cic. Off . 1.9–10 describes how choices are made, the role of expediency and the diffi culty of

choosing between two morally right courses. Panegyrics evolved from this type of deliberation, the fi rst Greek encomia originating in the sophists’ interests in questions of praise or blame and the academic discussion of the good and bad points of such subjects as Busiris or mice, cf. Russell and Wilson 1981, xiii. As Burgess 1902, 96 observes, epideictic had always had strong ties with delib-erative oratory. In late antique panegyrics, traces remain of this interest in abstract philosophical passages or moralizing sententiae. Such passages are often no more than a superfi cial nod to the underlying philosophy or morality, and act to reinforce the exemplary function of the panegyric (as indicated by Pliny).

77 Sen. Suas. 3 and 7.



into cruelty? Is severitas or clementia a more appropriate virtue for a ruler? To Romans who learned the codes of behavior through the study of exem-plary history, the actions of Constantius and Constantine could be seen as exemplifying clementia on the one hand and severitas on the other.

In her analysis of the moral exempla collated by Valerius Maximus, Lang-lands has argued that the eff ect of the exempla that he chooses is to make the reader realize that there may be more than one possible course of action and more than one valid moral judgement.78 In the case of severitas, what matters is the common good. In justifying his exemplars, Valerius implies the necessity of exemplary discipline. The tippling wife, for example, represents all women who in using wine close the door on virtue and open it to vice.79 The apparently borderline case of the shepherd who was crucifi ed for possess-ing a weapon exemplifi ed severitas rather than crudelitas since weapons were forbidden by law in an attempt to eradicate banditry.80 Mercy may be the easier, short-term option, but often harshness better serves the common good. As Cicero argued, “nevertheless, gentleness and mercy are to be approved, insofar as severity may be used for the good of the state, as without severity, the state cannot be well run.”81

There could be no question, to a Roman mind at least, that Constan-tine’s campaigns against the Franks were for the public good. In fact, when the orator refers to his actions on the Rhine as being pro utilitate publica (6(7).14.1), implications stretch well beyond translation as “the public good.” Utilitates is a generic word for the virtues, which can be defi ned as divine (or imperial) benefi ts to mankind.82 Constantine’s severitas, therefore, is genu-inely justifi ed, iusta, the adjective legitimately suggesting that he was waging bellum iustum, a just war, against the Franks.83 It is true that his actions may seem to verge on the cruel, but the orator’s reassurance is sincere. Constan-tine cannot be cruel; he is the son of Constantius, now defi ned as pius, who displayed clementia, misericordia, and venia. An essential diff erence between

78 Langlands 2008, 163.79 Val. Max. 6.3.9.80 Val. Max. 6.3.5.81 Cic. Off . 1.88: et tamen ita probanda est mansuetudo atque clementia, ut adhibeatur rei

publicae causa severitas, sine qua administrari civitas non potest. For the various diffi culties aris-ing from the exercise of severitas and clementia in times of crisis, see Dowling 2006, 31–5. Chris-tianity agreed with the Roman values and the fact that a ruler had to be strict: Tertullian’s (Marc. 2.13.5) division of the paternal and magisterial aspects of God, qualities that inspire fear and love at the same time, makes clementia the fatherly aspect of the magisterial severitas.

82 Cic. Nat. deorum, 2.60–2, cf. Symm. Rel. 3.8; Fears 1981, 832, 926.83 Weinstock 1971, 243–4 suggests that the ancient concept of the bellum iustum, a war waged

in self-defence in order to protect citizens and their property, is the reason that iustitia became part of the canon of virtues.



severitas and crudelitas is character, and the cruel ruler is one whose harsh nature enjoys infl icting punishment.84 This cannot apply to Constantine. The similarity between father and son in appearance and character, emphasized in the panegyrics of 307 and 310, takes on an extra dimension in the contrast between Constantius’ misericordia and Constantine’s severitas. The orator is not criticizing the father for weakness or the son for harshness. Rather, the two emperors are showing diff erent aspects of the same virtues as they are required at diff erent times. Constantius showed clementia and misericordia to the inhabitants of Britain who had sympathized with the usurper Carausius, a justifi able cause for mercy. Constantine showed exemplary severitas against the barbarians as mercy would be foolish and contrary to the public good. A good emperor needs to be both harsh and gentle and in the panegyric of 313, the orator would express the combination as qualities of war and peace co-existing in Constantine who is most fi erce in battle and most gentle in peace.85

By 313, however, Constantine had established himself and was sole ruler in the West; the audience knew of his qualities in war and peace. In this ear-lier panegyric, which traced the young emperor’s emergence from the shadow of his father and father-in-law, the possession of these virtues needed to be examined closely, for it had to be shown that Constantine truly merited his elevation. The panegyric of 307 simply asserted that Constantine had inher-ited his father’s virtues but could not prove it: the speech of 310 shows not only that Constantine has indeed inherited his father’s qualities, but that he had made them truly his own.

University of [email protected]

ReferencesAhl, Frederick. 1984. “The Art of Safe Criticism.” American Journal of Philology

105:174–208.Alföldi, A. 1952. “The Moral Barrier on the Rhine and Danube.” In The Congress

of Roman Frontier Studies 1949, edited by E. Birley, 1–17. Durham, University of Durham.

Bardill, Jonathan. 2012. Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barnes, T. D. 2011. Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Malden MA and Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.

84 Sen. Clem. 2.4.1: atrocitas animi in exigendis poenis.85 Pan. Lat. 12(9).10.5: in proeliis ferocissimus et parta securitate mitissimus. Rodgers 1989,

233. On this panegyric generally see Odahl 1990.



Bartsch, Shadi. 1994. Actors in the Audience. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Born, Lester K. 1934. “The Perfect Prince According to the Latin Panegyrists.” American Journal of Philology 55: 20–35.

Brandt, Samuel. 1882. Eumenius und die ihm zugeschriebenen Reden. Freiburg i.B. and Tübingen: Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung vor J. C. B. Mohr.

Braund, Susanna, 1998 “Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric.” In The Propaganda of Power, edited by Mary Whitby, 53–76. Leiden: Brill.

, ed. and trans. 2009. Seneca, De Clementia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Burgess, Theodore C. 1902. Epideictic Literature. Michigan: University of Chicago

Press.Burns, T. S. 2003. Barbarians 100 BC–AD 4000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Colombo, Maurizio. 2007. “Tre note sui Panegyrici Latini.” Hermes 135: 499–505.Dauge, Yves Albert. 1981. Le barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la

barbarie et de la civilisation. Brussels: Latomus.De Beer, Susanna. 2005. “The Panegyrical inventio: A Rhetorical Analysis of Pan.

Lat. V.” In The Manipulative Mode: Political Propaganda in Antiquity, a Col-lection of Case Studies, edited by Karl Enenkel and Ilja Leonard Pfeiff er, 295–318. Leiden: Brill.

Dowling, Melissa Barden. 2006. Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World. Michi-gan: University of Michigan Press.

Enenkel, Karl. 2000. “Panegyrische Geschichtmythologisierung und Propaganda: zur Interpretation des Panegryicus Latinus VI.” Hermes 128: 91–126.

Fears, J. Rufus. 1981. “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.18.2: 736–826.

Ferri, Rolando, ed. 2003. Octavia: A Play Attributed to Seneca. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Galinsky, Karl. 1996. Augustan Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Galletier, Edouard. 1949. Panégyriques Latins I–V. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Grünewald, Thomas. 1990. Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Historia Einzel-

schriften 64. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Janson, Tore. 1984. “Notes on the Text of the Panegyrici Latini.” Classical Philol-

ogy 79: 15–27.Kennedy, George. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.Kilian, B. 1869. Der panegyrist Eumenius. Würzburg: Thein.Klotz, A. 1911. “Studien zu den Panegyrici Latini.” Rheinisches Museum 66: 515–

72.Konstan, David. 2005. “Clemency as a Virtue.” Classical Philology 100: 337–346.Langlands, Rebecca. 2008. “‘Reading for the Moral.’ In Valerius Maximius: The

Case of seueritas.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 54: 160–187.

Lenski, Noel. 2006 “The Reign of Constantine.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, edited by Noel Lenski, 59–90. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.



L’Huillier, Marie-Claude. 1992. L’empire des mots. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Litchfi eld, H. W. 1914. “National exempla virtutis in Roman Literature.” Harvard

Studies in Classical Philology 25: 1–71.MacCormack, Sabine. 1981. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: Univer-

sity of California Press.Maguinness, W. S. 1933. “Locutions and Formulae of the Latin Panegyrists.” Her-

mathena 48: 117–38.Mattingly, Harold. 1937. “The Roman ‘Virtues’.” Harvard Theological Review 30:

103–17.Müller-Rettig, Brigitte. 1990. Der Panegyricus des Jahres 310 auf Konstantin den

Grossen. Übersetzung und historisch-philogischer Kommetar. Palingenesia, 31. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Mynors, R. A. B., ed. 1964. XII Panegyrici Latini. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nixon, C. E. V. 1993. “Constantinus Oriens Imperator, Propaganda and Panegyric:

On Reading Panegyric 7 (307).” Historia 42: 229–46.Nixon, C. E. V., and Barbara Saylor Rodgers. 1994. In Praise of Later Roman

Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley: University of California Press.Noreña, Carlos F. 2001. “The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues.” Journal of

Roman Studies 91: 146–68. . 2011. Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation,

Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.North, H. F. 1966. “Canons and Hierarchies of the Cardinal Virtues in Greek and

Latin Literature.” In The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honour of Harry Caplan, edited by Luitpold Wallach, 165–83. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Odahl, Charles M. 1990. “A Pagan’s Reaction to Constantine’s Conversion—Reli-gious References in the Trier Panegyric of A.D. 313.” Ancient World 21: 45–63.

. 2004. Constantine and the Christian Empire. London and New York, Rout-ledge.

Pernot, Laurent. 2000. Rhetoric in Antiquity. Translated by W. E. Higgins, 2005. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

Pichon, René. 1906. Les derniers ecrivains profanes: Les Panégyristes—Ausone—le Querolus—Rutilius Namatianus. Paris: E. Leroux.

Rees, Roger. 2004. “Praising in Prose: Vergil in the Latin Panegyrics.” In Romane Memento, edited by Roger Rees, 33–46. London: Duckworth Press.

. 2011. “Afterwords of Praise.” In Pliny’s Praise: The Panegyricus in the Roman World, edited by Paul Roche, 175–88. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

. 2012. “The Modern History of Latin Panegyric.” In Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Latin Panegyric, edited by Roger Rees, 3–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rodgers, Barbara Saylor. 1980. “Constantine’s Pagan Vision.” Byzantion 50: 259–78.3

. 1989. “The Metamorphosis of Constantine.” Classical Quarterly 39: 233–46.



Rodríguez Gervás, M. J. 1984–5. “Las virtudes del emperador Constantino.” Studia Historica. Historia Atingua 2–3: 239–47.

Rosso, Emmanuelle. 2008. “The Barbarians in Roman Art (First Century bce to Third Century ce).” In Rome and the Barbarians: The Birth of a New World, edited by J. J. Aillagon, 162–5. Milan: Skira Editore.

Russell, D. A. 1998. “The Panegyrists and Their Teachers.” In The Propaganda of Power, edited by Mary Whitby, 17–49. Leiden: Brill.

Russell, D. A., and N. G. Wilson. ed. and trans. 1981. Menander Rhetor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ryberg, I. S. 1966. “Clupeus Virtutis.” In The Classical Tradition, Literary and His-torical Studies in Honour of Harry Caplan, edited by Luitpold Wallach, 232–8. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Seager, Robin. 1983. “Some Imperial Virtues in the Latin Prose Panegyrics.” Pro-ceedings of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 4: 129–65.

Seeck, Otto. 1888. “Studien zur Geschichte Diocletians und Constantins, I. Die Reden des Eumenius.” Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Pädagogik 137: 713–28.

Smith, R. R. R. 1997. “The Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early Fourth Century.” Journal of Roman Studies 87: 170–202.

Stephenson, Paul. (2009) Constantine: Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor. London: Quercus.

Sutherland, C. H. V. 1967. The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. 6. London: Spink and Sons Ltd.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. 1981. “The Emperor and His Virtues.” Historia 30: 298–323.

Ware, Catherine. 2013 “Learning from Pliny: Claudian’s Advice to the Emperor Honorius.” Arethusa 46: 244–69.

Weinstock, Stefan. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Whitmarsh, Tim. 2005. The Second Sophistic. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Wickert, Lothar. 1954. “Princeps.” In Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertum-

swissenschaft (Pauly–Wissowa) 22.2, 1998–2311.Williams, R. Deryck. 1973. The Aeneid of Virgil, Books 7–12. Basingstoke and Lon-

don: Macmillan.


Documents

The severitas of Constantine: imperial virtues in Panegyrici Latini VII(6) and VI(7)