“All the Famous Deeds of Achilles are Yours”: Homeric Exemplarity in Late Antique Panegyric

: Late antique panegyrists often raise up their laudandi by casting a shadow on Homer and his (mainly Iliadic) heroes. This paper traces the history of an increasingly irreverent attitude towards Greece’s foundational poet and his heroes within panegyric compositions and asks what motivates this flamboyant rejection. The impact of a Christian mode of exemplarity is incontestable, but cannot wholly account for this development. Christian encomia which engage the Hebrew Bible for their synkriseis generally shy away from undercutting the venerable biblical exempla. My suggestion is that the “aggressive” attitude towards Iliadic exempla in classicizing panegyric is bound up with the position of the Iliad as the didactic text par excellence and as a central, yet deeply problematic, text in debates around ideal rulership.

! %! Dionysus to Achilles, saying that Homer should have sung the far superior struggles of Bacchus against the giants and left to other poets the labors of Achilles. His choice of the latter, and lesser, hero is, according to Nonnus, due to Thetis who snatched for her son the prize that should have belonged to Dionysus (25.260: τοῦτο Θέτις γέρας ἥρπασεν). In a neat reversal of the Iliad's first book, where Achilles' γέρας, Briseis, is famously seized by Agamemnon, Nonnus' Achilles snatches, through his mother, another's γέρας: he undeservingly receives Homer's gift of poetry, which should have belonged to Dionysus. 9 George of Pisidia, Nonnus' last late antique imitator, writes in the seventh century an iambic poem in praise of Heraclius' victorious campaign against the Persians (De expeditione Persica, 622-24 CE). In the first canto (or "listening session"; ἀκρόασις in Greek), Pisides claims that, if Homer had been aware of Heraclius' perfect nature, he would have dedicated his efforts to sketching his portrait as the "one, fourfold image to be added to all the virtues combined" (1.80-81: προσθεὶς … τῶν ἀρετῶν συνηµµένων / µίαν … τετράµορφον εἰκόνα), having abandoned the many fables (1.78: ἀφεὶς τὰ πολλὰ τῶν λόγων µυθεύµατα) that forced him to portray the four virtues separately, embodied in different heroes. 10 While Pisides follows this up with a reference to Nestor as a positive model of eloquence, naturally surpassed by Heraclius, a fragment from the third ἀκρόασις suggests that his view of the Iliad's protagonist would have been much more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9 Much has been written on Nonnus' combative relationship with Homer. The most extensive treatment is Shorrock 2001. For the competition between Dionysus and Achilles in the "proem in the middle," see now Henry 2020.448-51.

! '!
Hilarion, is so much superior that Homer himself would have envied Jerome or even have fallen short of the laudatory task (1: ut Homerus quoque si adesset, vel invideret materiae, vel succumberet). 14 In the sixth century, Venantius Fortunatus writes a poem for his friend, the bishop Felix, in celebration of his re-routing of a local river and the construction of a new dam. The poem (3.10) begins with an attack on the ancient bards: they should yield just as ancient deeds yield to innovation (3.10.2: vincuntur rebus facta vetusta novis). If Homer had witnessed the bishop's feat, "everybody would read of Felix, none of Achilles" (3.10.5: cuncti Felicem legerent modo, nullus Achillem). Achilles is, once again, unworthy of his poetic fame.

Homer and Panegyric: A Brief "Archaeology"
A view of the Trojan War as, in reality, a primitive affair and relatively minor conflict is as old as Thucydides. The Athenian historian, in the "Archaeology" section of his first book, bitterly protests that the Trojan War does not deserve its renown: "while being most famous among those of old, it is shown by the facts to have been inferior to its repute and to the tradition that still attaches to it on account of the poets." 18 Thucydides, much like later panegyrists, aims to discredit the magnitude of the Trojan War in order to aggrandize the present conflict and, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16 The attack on Homer can be found in both of the oldest manuscripts which transmit the poem. In the Grottaferrata manuscript, 4.27-28: παύσασθε γράφειν Ὅµηρον καὶ µύθους Ἀχιλλέως / ὡσαύτως καὶ τοῦ Ἕκτορος, ἅπερ εἰσὶ ψευδέα ("Cease writing of Homer and the legends of Achilles / and likewise of Hector; these are false."); in the Escorial manuscript, vv. 718-9: καὶ οὐ λέγοµεν καυχίσµατα ἤ πλάσµατα καὶ µύθους / ἅ Ὅµηρος ἐψεύσατο καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων ("And we are not repeating the boasts or fictions and stories / which Homer and other Hellenes falsely invented."). Texts and translation from Jeffreys 1998. 17 E.g., on George Pisides belittling Homer, Plutarch, and Demosthenes in order to enhance his self-projection as imperial spokesman, see Xenophontos 2020. 18 Thuc. 1.11.3: ὀνοµαστότατα τῶν πρὶν γενόµενα, δηλοῦται τοῖς ἔργοις ὑποδεέστερα ὄντα τῆς φήµης καὶ τοῦ νῦν περὶ αὐτῶν διὰ τοὺς ποιητὰς λόγου κατεσχηκότος. On the structure of the "Archaeology" and Thucydides' difficulty with the Trojan War's reputation, see Ellis 1991, esp. 373. ! )! by extension, his own work, which would thus surpass and replace the epic tradition. 19 A century later, such a criticism of the small scale of the Trojan War can already be found in a panegyric speech. In early 322 BCE Hyperides delivers the Funeral Oration in Athens, celebrating the city's resistance to Macedon in the Lamian War. Hyperides claims (paragraphs 35-36) that the Athenian general Leosthenes is superior to the Greek heroes who conquered Troy: while they only took one city, Leosthenes saved his city and humiliated the force that ruled over the whole continents of Asia and Europe; and while they defended the honor of one woman, Leosthenes prevented the hubreis that would be committed against all the women of Greece.
Hyperides' exultation of his laudandus above the heroes of the Trojan War is, however, atypical in this era: in both the Classical and Hellenistic periods laudandi are more often equated with, rather than elevated above, their real or mythic ancestors, including Homeric heroes. 20 In Isocrates' panegyric of the city of Athens, the Panathenaicus (339 BCE), Agamemnon, envisioned as the mythic equivalent of Athens and by extension all of Greece, is unconditionally and extensively praised as the model king who united all the Greeks against the barbarian Trojans and did not give up on his Pan-Hellenic mission until his objective was achieved. 21 His feat was insurmountable in his own time and will remain so for all posterity. 22 In a different speech, addressed to the Cypriot king Evagoras (Or. 9), Isocrates praises Achilles, Ajax, and Teucer as the glorious ancestors of Evagoras and the most distinguished heroes in the war of the Greeks against the "barbarians" (9.17.6: ἐπὶ τοὺς βαρβάρους).
In the mid third century BCE Theocritus writes a hexameter encomium for Ptolemy II Philadelphus in which the king is compared to Diomedes and Achilles.
The comparisons appear near the beginning of the poem, in the section dealing with Ptolemy's ancestry, and their obvious function is to underline the similarities between fathers and sons (verging on identity in the case of the Ptolemies, as father and son share the same name), as well as to strengthen the Ptolemaic dynasty's claim to two heroes that are important in a Macedonian context. 23 While the arrangement of the comparisons might imply that Philadelphus, who had two divinized parents, is superior to Diomedes (who had none) and Achilles (who had one), 24 it is left up to the reader to draw this conclusion. Theocritus does not spell ! "+! out the implications of the heroes' ancestries nor does he feel the need to distance Philadelphus from the reputation of Diomedes as bloodthirsty and impious or from the wrathful, impulsive, and overly violent traits of Homer's Achilles. On the contrary, the strong Homeric flavor of the poem's language together with the thematic echoes work to present Philadelphus "as a latter-day Agamemnon or Achilles, and thus as the true heir of Alexander." 25

Homer and the Iliad in Late Antique Panegyric
The contrast with the treatment of Iliadic heroes in late antique panegyrics is stark. Although not all instances would fall into the pattern outlined below, there is a clear tendency not only to belittle the Trojan War on account of its scale (as seen above) but also, and more crucially, to draw attention to the moral and other shortcomings of its heroes, which the laudandi are said not to share. A striking example is the encomiastic poem written by Cyrus of Panopolis (fifth century) for the emperor Theodosius II and preserved in the Palatine Anthology: πάντα µὲν Αἰακίδαο φέρεις ἀριδείκετα ἔργα νόσφι χόλου καὶ ἔρωτος· ὀιστεύεις δ' ἅτε Τεῦκρος, ἀλλ' οὔ τοι νόθον ἦµαρ· ἔχεις δ' ἐρικυδέα µορφὴν τὴν Ἀγαµεµνονέην, ἀλλ' οὐ φρένας οἶνος ὀρίνει· ἐς πινυτὴν δ' Ὀδυσῆι δαΐφρονι πᾶν σε ἐίσκω, (5) ἀλλὰ κακῶν ἀπάνευθε δόλων· Πυλίου δὲ γέροντος ἶσον ἀποστάζεις, βασιλεῦ, µελιηδέα φωνήν, πρὶν χρόνον ἀθρήσεις τριτάτην ψαύοντα γενέθλην. Cyrus compares Theodosius to a host of Homeric heroes, but they are all found to be in some way problematic, so each and every comparison has to be hedged, qualified, and contained by "subtracting" the attributes of each hero that are offensive and cannot be applied to the emperor. As each comparison is separated from its corresponding "subtraction" by either a change of line or strong caesura, the poem almost stages the process by which the panegyrist goes over the Homeric exempla looking for an ideal match for his laudandus, only to discover that Homeric heroes are, in fact, remarkably flawed models. The first comparison is perhaps also the most remarkable, because, especially for a late antique audience, Achilles' personality is defined by his wrath and his many loves (for Deidameia, Briseis, Penthesileia, and Polyxena). 27 One may very well ask what will be left of Achilles once his wrath and love are removed.
This litany of Homeric heroes to whom the emperor is similar and yet manifestly superior is somewhat reminiscent of Julian the Emperor's encomiastic Cameron 2016.40-41, whose translation I have used here, argues that this must be a fragment from a longer panegyric rather than an independent poem and that it must have been written at around 435 CE. On this poem cf. Viljamaa 1968.77-79 andAgosti 2019.122-23. 27 For the focus on Achilles as lover in post-classical antiquity, see Fantuzzi 2012. ! "#! tour de force: his Second Panegyric for Constantius (Or. 2), written while Julian was Constantius' Caesar in Gaul, probably in the winter of 357/8 CE, after Julian had won several decisive battles. 28 Almost the entirety of the speech is taken up by a gigantic synkrisis of the emperor to various Iliadic heroes. 29 In the following passage, for example, we read of the emperor's unsurpassable skills as soldier and archer: τίνι δήποτε οὖν τῶν ὑπὸ τῆς Ὁµηρικῆς ὑµνουµένων σειρῆνος εἴξοµεν; ἔστι µὲν γὰρ τοξότης παρ' αὐτῷ Πάνδαρος, ἀνὴρ ἄπιστος καὶ χρηµάτων ἥττων, ἀλλὰ καὶ 28 This date and whether or not the speech was actually delivered are still moot points; see Drake 2012. 39. On the "sincerity" of the speech and whether or not it contains a hint of insubordination towards Constantius, see n. 29 below. 29 There is no space here to consider in detail the controversial beginning of this speech, where Julian plunges directly into a discussion of the relative merits of Achilles and Agamemnon in the context of their Iliadic conflict. Some scholars have argued that Julian's criticism of Agamemnon's insolence in removing Briseis from Achilles is a veiled threat against Constantius, who had recently recalled from Gaul Julian's close friend and advisor Saturninius Secundus Salutius: Julian could be hinting that, like Achilles, he is no longer willing to be fighting his king's battles. For the speech as a cryptic allusion to Julian's disloyalty, see Bidez 1965.113;Athanassiadi 1992.63-66;Curta 1995.186-87;Schorn 2008.248-50;Stenger 2009.142-49;Drake 2012.37;Alvino 2016;Omissi 2018.202. While this reading is not entirely implausible, it should be noted that Julian criticizes Achilles almost as much as he does Agamemnon: he condemns him as excessively rash in falling out with his king and as misguided in spending his time singing when he should have been fighting. At the conclusion of this passage Julian claims that Constantius is a better king than Agamemnon, granting forgiveness even to those who do not deserve it. The synkrisis thus conforms to the pattern of other such Iliadic comparisons in the speech. For arguments against the view of this panegyric as a veiled threat against Constantius, see Whitby 1999.87, esp. nn. 46 and 47;García Ruiz 2018.208-209. Ross 2018 is also right to point out that Julian's later persona as the openly rebel and "apostate" should not be retrojected to "Julian the Caesar" of the mid 350s.
And now which one of those heroes to whom Homer devotes his enchanting strains shall I admit to be superior to you? There is the archer Pandaros in Homer, but he is treacherous and yields to bribes [Il. 4.97]; moreover his arm was weak and he was an inferior hoplite: then there are besides, Teucer and Meriones. The latter employs his bow against a pigeon [Il. 23.870] while Teucer, though he distinguished himself in battle, always needed a sort of bulwark or wall. Accordingly he keeps a shield in front of him [Il. 8.266], and that not his own but his brother's, and aims at the enemy at his ease, cutting an absurd figure as a soldier, seeing that he needed a protector taller than himself and that it was not in his weapons that he placed his hopes of safety. But I have seen you many a time, my beloved Emperor, bringing down bears and panthers and lions with the weapons hurled by your hand. (Or. 2.52d-53b) 30 Julian's selective and bathetic reading of the Iliad not only points out moral shortcomings (Pandarus' treachery) but also cuts the Homeric heroes down to absurd figures or, literally, a "laughable soldier" (γελοῖος … στρατιώτης), 30 I am using the translation by Wright 1913. ! "%! shooting at pigeons and hiding behind others' shields. 31 Nor is it just the relatively minor Iliadic heroes that Julian subjects to this type of treatment: later on (in 75b-76b) he compares Constantius to Nestor and Odysseus in terms of the loftier pursuits of public speaking and deliberations. Julian cleverly points out that Nestor's attempts at persuasion in Iliad 1 were far from successful and then criticizes Nestor's idea to build a wall for the Achaean camp as both cowardly and having no practical effect: after building Nestor's proposed wall the Achaeans were in fact worsted by the Trojans. Odysseus, for all his famed eloquence, actually made matters worse in the embassy to Achilles (Iliad 9): Achilles was provoked to start making preparations for his return home, which he had not even contemplated before listening to Odysseus. Achilles himself is not spared either: in a long-winded sequence (58b-62a) Julian compares Constantius' battle by the river Drave (in the war against Magnentius) to Achilles' battle by the Scamander. 32 Whereas Achilles inhumanely slaughtered all the Trojans he captured in his blind rage after Patroclus' death, Constantius magnanimously proclaimed an amnesty for his repentant enemies and is thus obviously the better man.
Agamemnon's cruelty also turns him into a negative exemplum. Julian (99d-100a) claims that Constantius' mercy towards his vanquished usurper's son and allies marks him out as superior to the Achaean king "who vented his rage and For Julian's particularly scathing attack on Hector as an ineffectual warrior, see 67a-68c and 73b. 32 In the same breath as he denounces Achilles' savagery Julian also accuses Homer of inventing as a "plaything" Achilles' battle against the river itself: it is a fanciful, unrealistic account (Ὁµήρου … παίγνιον, καινὸν καὶ ἄτοπον µονοµαχίας τρόπον ἐπινοήσαντος). In 74a-b Julian also compares the Trojan War to Constantius' military efforts in terms of scale, to the obvious benefit of the latter.
Reflect, then, on how much more like a king Theodosius has behaved towards those who angered him, than the descendant of Pelops, the son of Atreus, Homer's Agamemnon of wide dominion. He reproved his brother when he was relenting towards the suppliant, and sent up such a bitter, even barbaric prayer, that none of the Trojans should escape, not even the male child whom his mother carries in her womb, that not even he should escape but even those as ! "'! yet unborn should die before they come into existence. But we are gentle towards those who are suppliants. (Or. 34.25) 33 Although Themistius does not cite here Agamemnon's famous Homeric lines as he does elsewhere, 34 he uses one of Agamemnon's formulaic epithets (εὐρυκρείων) to give a Homeric coloring to his own text. The strong censure of Agamemnon's behavior is woven into the paraphrase of his words and mapped onto the Greek -barbarian dichotomy, as his prayer is labelled not only "bitter" but also "barbaric" (εὐχὴν … βαρβαρικήν). In contrast to his Isocratean portrayal as champion of pan-Hellenic civilization enacting vengeance on eastern barbarians, the Agamemnon of late antique panegyric often becomes a toxic king. This is literally the case in another speech by Themistius, also addressed to Theodosius I (in 381 CE), where the plague that ravishes the Achaean camp in Iliad 1 stems directly from Agamemnon's folly: τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν τοῖς ὑπηκόοις δικαιότης τοῦ ἡγεµόνος, ὥσπερ αὖ πάλιν τοῦ µὴ ἀρεστοῦ τῷ θεῷ, µηδὲ ἀρεστὰ ἐργαζοµένου ἄρχεται ἡ δίκη οὐκ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ εὐθύς, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχοµένων.
"ἐννῆµαρ µὲν ἀνὰ στρατὸν ᾤχετο κῆλα θεοῖο" καίτοι ὁ στρατὸς οὗτος οὐ συνηγρίαινε πρὸς τὸν Χρύσην τῷ Ἀγαµέµνονι, ἀλλὰ ! "(! "καὶ ἐπευφήµησαν ἅπαντες αἰδεῖσθαί θ' ἱερῆα καὶ ἀγλαὰ δέχθαι ἄποινα." εἰ δ' αὖ καὶ ὁ στρατὸς ξυνηδίκει, ὅτι συνεχώρει, ἀλλὰ τούς γε ὀρεῖς καὶ τοὺς κύνας τί τοὺς ἀθῴους ὁ ὀϊστὸς ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις ἐπεπορεύετο; ἀλλὰ διδάσκει, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ὅµηρος ἡµᾶς τὰ µὲν τῶν ἰδιωτῶν πληµµελήµατα εἰς αὐτοὺς ἵστασθαι τοὺς πληµµελοῦντας, ταῖς δὲ τῶν βασιλέων ἀγνωµοσύναις ὑπεύθυνον γίνεσθαι καὶ τὸ ὑπήκοον. εἶτα ὥσπερ φῶς ἐκχεόµενον ἀκήρατον ἐξ ἀκηράτου λαµπτῆρος ἡ τῆς σῆς γνώµης ἀγαθοεργία ἅπαντας µὲν καταυγάζει καὶ τοὺς πόρρω καὶ τοὺς πλησίον, ἐκδηλότερον δὲ τοὺς ἀγχοῦ ἑστῶτας. A leader's righteousness is just such a great boon to his subjects. In the opposite case, however, of one who is not pleasing to God and who does not perform pleasing acts, vengeance starts not from him but from his subjects. 35 "For nine days the shafts of the god visited the army," [Il. 1.53] even though that army did not share Agamemnon's spleen against Chryses but on the contrary, "all called out that he should respect the priest and accept the glorious ransom." ! ")! from the unsullied lamp, the good wrought by your thought shines on all, both far and near, but more clearly on those who stand close by.  As so often happens in Greek literature, questions of "origins" become indissoluble from the literary text that is both the "origin" of Greek literature and a meditation on what distinguishes a "cause" from a "beginning." 36 The Iliad might begin with the wrath of Achilles mentioned in the very first verse, but, as it swiftly transpires, the wrath is but the end result of a series of preventable catastrophes going back to the plague, which itself goes back to the diseased mind of Agamemnon and his cruel rejection of Chryses. As Themistius points out, the army did not share Agamemnon's savage impulses (οὐ συνηγρίαινε), but was nevertheless punished, as were the animals of the camp. Responsibility weighs heavier on Theodosius now. While he is explicitly said to be unlike Agamemnon, he is also subtly warned that he is the potential origin of widespread misfortune: if he errs, his subjects will suffer like those of Agamemnon. 37 It is also significant that Themistius commences this speech, which he copiously sprinkles with Homeric quotations, 38 by confidently presenting his own, philosophically inflected, speech as equal both to Homer's Iliad, of which he paraphrases the first verse, and to Thucydides, who, as Themistius recognizes, "does not hesitate to declare, as an enticement and allurement to his prospective audience, that he is going to relate in full the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, At stake here is not the gentleness and mercy of the laudandus as opposed to the cruelty of the Homeric kings, but rather the scale of the slaughter and the coldblooded efficiency of the Roman consul whose revenge is "bigger and better" than those of Aeneas and Achilles. Claudian swiftly dispatches pius Aeneas in little more than one verse (the line ending with the evocative piavit), and then dwells on Achilles' savage treatment of Hector's corpse. While some in Claudian's audience might have read about these notorious events in the Iliad itself, it is upon the Roman re-imagining of the Homeric Achilles that this poet primarily draws in order to paint his Achilles as a negative foil for Stilicho. 41 Claudian's disparagement of the Iliadic hero as mad (100: vesano … curru) and venal (99: quaestus; 100: venalia) seems to build upon the portrayal of Achilles (mediated through Aeneas' eyes) as "selling the lifeless body [of Hector] for gold" in the ekphrasis of Aeneid 1 (484: exanimumque auro corpus vendebat Achilles). The "idle savagery" of Claudian's Achilles (101-2: vanam … saevitiam) might also be amplifying the saevus … Achilles (again voiced by Aeneas) of Aeneid 2.29, The translation is adapted from Platnauer 1922. 41 Cf. Ware 2012.93 on Claudian employing, in a different poem, a "two-tiered allusion to the Achilleid and the Aeneid" in order to enhance Honorius' Achillean features with the Roman mores of the Aeneid. It should be noted, however, that it is the Statian, and not the Homeric, Achilles that is used as a positive foil for Honorius. ! #"! though it should be stated that Claudian's denigration of the Homeric hero is forceful and effective in its own right and does not depend on specifically recalling either the Homeric or the Virgilian text. 42

Classicizing and Christian Exemplarities
Claudia Schindler's comprehensive analysis of Claudian's use of mythical exempla in his political poetry suggests a variety of processes that led to Claudian's "destructive" use of myth ("destructive" in that some myths are rejected as mere fiction, while others are deemed insufficient or unacceptable on moral grounds). 43 Some of these processes are also relevant for the rejection of Homer and his Iliadic heroes as discussed in this article. For Claudian, as well as for other late antique panegyrists, the past holds a normative power that is paradoxically at odds with the fact that it is becoming increasingly objectionable, especially for Christian audiences. This creative tension allows panegyrists to engage in "panegyrische Überbietung" more extensively and systematically than in the past: by evoking and dismissing mythical exempla as invariably outdated or inadequate they laud the present in absolute, a-temporal terms, suggesting that it should itself become exemplary and, by extension, that their texts should become The disparagement of Achilles on account of his "selling" Hector's body to Priam is also found in Greek literature, but is perhaps more prominent in Latin. See, briefly, Anthologia Latina 150 (161 R.), an epigram titled "Against Achilles": "Wicked dismemberer, if you knew how to demand its proper value, you would not drag around that which was worth its weight in gold for you." Noah's Ark, which had long been interpreted typologically as Christ's Church, is now seen as but a shadowy prefiguration of Basil's specific church, saving its flock from heresy. 47 Gregory of Nyssa's Encomium of Basil (In Basilium fratrem) takes the form of a long sequence of synkriseis between Basil and a host of

biblical figures -in this respect it is the Christian counterpart of Julian's Second
Panegyric for Constantius, which mobilizes almost the entirety of Homer's Iliad for its encomiastic mission. In Gregory of Nyssa's speech, for example, Basil is considered superior to John the Baptist: both Basil and John spoke with parrhesia before their kings (Valens and Herod respectively), but Basil was the one who faced the more powerful, and therefore more dangerous, despot. And while the Baptist only spoke to censure Herod's unlawful relations with a woman -a sin that was limited to one man's body (14: ἐν τῷ σώµατι τοῦ Ἡρώδου τὸ ἄγος περιωρίζετο), Basil spoke in defence of Orthodoxy, with implications for the whole oikoumênê (ἡ παρανοµία πάσης τῆς οἰκουµένης ἄγος ἐγίνετο).
As tempting as it might seem to consider this type of Christian exemplarity and its classicizing counterpart as entirely equivalent, it is important to acknowledge the differences. Both Church Fathers preface their synkriseis of Basil to John the Baptist with deferential, pre-emptive remarks. The Nazianzen says that this part of his speech might appear daring, but its purpose is actually to show Basil as the Baptist's most fervent imitator and as carrying in him something of the latter's character. 48 Gregory of Nyssa concedes that to compare anyone else to the Baptist would seem mad and impious; 49 Basil is a glaring exception. Neither the Nazianzen nor the Nyssaeus undercuts the biblical figures employed in his synkriseis by pointing out morally dubious actions to which the Bible is, in fact, no Funeral Oration for Basil 75: καὶ εἴ τῳ φαίνεται τολµηρὸς ὁ λόγος, ἐκεῖνο προεξεταζέτω τοῖς λεγοµένοις, ὅτι µὴ προτιθεὶς µηδὲ εἰς ἶσον µετάγων τὸν ἄνδρα τῷ ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν ὑπὲρ ἅπαντας, ταύτην ποιοῦµαι τὴν παρεξέτασιν· ἀλλὰ ζηλωτὴν ἀποφαίνων καί τι τοῦ χαρακτῆρος ἐκείνου ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέροντα. 49 In Basilium fratrem 13: µανίας ἂν εἴη καὶ ἀσεβείας ἅµα ἄλλον ἀντιπαρεξαγαγεῖν τῷ τοιούτῳ βίῳ διὰ συγκρίσεως. ! #%! stranger. For example, when Gregory Nazianzen relates Jacob's life (in 71.3-4), he introduces each of the patriarch's accomplishments with the verb ἐπαινῶ ("I praise"), which he then also uses to introduce those of Basil (ἀλλ' ἐπαινῶ καὶ τούτου). Jacob's short biography here does not include events that could render him morally ambiguous (e.g., his deception of his father) or even ridiculous: no reference is made to his being tricked by his father-in-law into receiving the wrong bride in his bed (Genesis 29:23). Jacob's biblical life is tailored so that he appears more, not less, acceptable as an exemplum for the saintly laudandus.
There is no doubt that these Church Fathers read their Bible as carefully as Cyrus, Julian and Themistius read their Homer, and that both foundational texts were scoured for appropriate exempla to be used in panegyric synkriseis. While Christian and classicizing exemplarities interlock in projecting an a-temporal and endless present (for Christians: the age of grace), 50 it is evident that Church Fathers have to shy away from treating their biblical exempla as irreverently as Homeric heroes are treated in classicizing panegyric. 51 Whereas Julian can re-play the Iliad for laughs and Themistius can dwell on the toxic aspects of Agamemnon's personality, biblical figures are the incomplete, but necessarily The criticism directed against mythological heroes in Christian apologetics might also have some impact on the "destruction" of myth in late antique panegyric (especially in so far as myths are rejected as fiction), but it is not the driving force behind the irreverence and "aggression" we find in Homeric exemplarity and which is unparalleled in the treatment of other mythological heroes. Heracles is a hero who, like Achilles and at least since the times of Alexander, had long been embedded in kingship discourses and propaganda. 53 His heroic saga also brims with undignified, comic, 54 or offensive experiences, while some Church Fathers scorn him "as a demon plagued with vices." 55 Yet his appearance in late antique panegyric neither reflects nor alludes to this view, and panegyrists do not generally feel the need to address the hero's moral shortcomings. While his labors might be rejected as the "hackneyed themes of ancient fables" alongside trite gigantomachies, 56 or as limited in scope compared See, also, the popularity of laudatory comparisons with Moses: these point to parallels between the biblical exemplum (who is a thoroughly positive model) and the laudandus, who is often described as a "new Moses"; see Rapp 1997. For Gregory Nazianzen as a new Moses or Job in his poems, see Prudhomme 2020. 53 For the hero's role in late antique imperial propaganda, see Eppinger 2015.157-255. 54 For an overview of the comic aspects see, Pike 1980. 55 Mellas 2019.125. See, e.g., Origen's Contra Celsum 7.54 on the affair with Omphale; Lactantius Div. Inst. 1.9; 1.18.3-10 and 13-17 on his anger. ! ! #'! to the emperor's worldwide salvific mission, 57 the hero's specific accomplishments are paralleled to those of imperial laudandi without the need explicitly to "subtract" moral faults or draw attention to the less than flattering aspects of the hero's character and career. 58

The Particularities of the Iliad
My suggestion is that the particularly "aggressive" form of "panegyrische Überbietung" that we see with Homeric (and more specifically Iliadic) exemplarity is bound up with the position of the Iliad as the didactic text par excellence (in the sense that it was taught more than any other text) 59 and with the fact that late Greek audiences were not only trained to read the Iliad critically and from different points of view but were also "programmed" from a long tradition of philosophical or quasi-philosophical debates on kingship to expect this text to be central, and yet deeply problematic, in any attempt to delineate or address the ideal See, e.g., George Pisides' Heraclias 1.65-68, where Heraclius' redemption of the whole oikoumênê is contrasted to Heracles' slaying of single beasts. The one who is really castigated here, though, is Homer, who called Heracles a god "missing the mark" (1.66: ἀσκόπως). For Heraclius as Heracles in this poem, see Mellas 2019. Cf. Claudian's representation of Stilicho as superior to Heracles, and Rufinus as more monstrous than the Hydra, Scylla, and Chimaera in Ruf. Alexander is more prudent than Agamemnon who preferred his concubine to his wife; more magnanimous than Achilles in the treatment of his dead foes and more generous than him in enriching his friends and even enemies instead of taking gifts from them; more pious than Diomedes who fought against the gods; and more loved by both friends and enemies than Odysseus was by his family. 62 As is the case with later panegyric, criticism of moral faults attaches particularly well to the Iliadic figures, who are disparaged with reference to their specific actions or behaviors in the Homeric text.
66 See Hunter 2009.169-201. ! $+! Achilles, in which the exact same actions of the hero (e.g., his summoning an assembly in Iliad 1.54-56) are seen from radically different points of view. 68 When the panegyrists undertake the praise of emperors or other late antique dignitaries, they know that in the Iliad they will find profoundly ambivalent models for their addressees. These dubious models were also embedded in a complex narrative which many in their audience would have learnt to read as a story of passions running wild, insubordination, broken chains of command, and questionable decisions leading to tragic outcomes. The panegyrists' strain to adjust Iliadic narrative sequences to panegyric ends is, occasionally, palpable. In 383 CE Themistius delivers an Oration (16) For the encomium of Thersites as adoxography and the two pieces on Achilles see, now, Greensmith 2020.61-63 with comments on how Libanius works extra-Homeric material back into the Iliadic frame. ! $"! Scythians" immediately bowed before Saturninus. The Iliadic paradigm crumbles under the pressure of all the modifiers and limitations it requires in order to function within a panegyric, just as Iliadic heroes can disappear under the severe modifications they have to undergo in order to become adequate panegyric exempla. At the end, Theodosius' dispatch of Saturninus is as Iliadic as an Achilles "minus" his wrath and love.
Yet the Iliad's paradigmatic value remains incontrovertible. By modifying or outright rejecting its narratives and heroes, panegyrists demonstrate that they are able to control all the potentially dangerous ramifications of their exempla, staying always one step ahead of the audience in detecting dissonances between the present situation (which is to be lauded in absolute terms) and the Iliadic paradigm, whose exemplarity will invariably be debatable. Appealing to the authority of the Iliad -a foundational text with which everybody in the audience would have been acquainted, irrespective of religion -70 thus served multiple interests: it provided a shared, "mythic" language of moral instruction; it enhanced the panegyrists' standing (more on which in the final paragraphs below); last but not least, it offered the sheer entertainment of bringing the grand Homeric heroes down one peg (invective always being more amusing than praise). 71

Conclusion: The Usefulness of a Flawed Model
This article began with the panegyrists' remonstrations with Homer and their wish (expressed obliquely or directly) to replace his Iliad with their own brand of historical / encomiastic composition. 72 It has also often been noted that late antique panegyrists glorify themselves and enhance their own self-projection just as much as they glorify their laudandi. 73 In this respect, the Iliad's problematic exemplarity is all the more useful: by dismissing the merits of the Homeric "competition," panegyrists showcase their learning and ingenuity. In a way, they bring both emperor and audience back to the classroom, where the panegyrist, perhaps a professional rhetorician himself, assumes the familiar role of the teacher expounding his moralizing interpretations of the Homeric text.
I tell you, your majesty, that it is your task to hold that speech before you, into which, if you look as if into a mirror each day with penetrating gaze, you will dispose in more becoming fashion not your hair but the Roman rule. You have no need of the precepts of Marcus [Aurelius], nor of any other noble phrase !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 75 Janan 2020.225 on Phoenix in Statius' Silvae. 76 As far as I have been able to verify, this metaphor does not appear in other Greek panegyrics.
Haake 2018.312 states that only Seneca uses the word "mirror" in a text that may be considered a "mirror of princes," referring to Seneca's de clementia 1.1 (ut quodam modo speculi vice fungerer), which was addressed to Nero. It is intriguing here that Themistius' hair-arranging emperor would naturally evoke Nero (see O'Meara / Schamp 2006 n. ad loc.) and that the panegyrist commenced this speech by expressing his regret that he did not speak the emperor's language (71c-72a): Valens would be listening to the speech translated into Latin. Whether by coincidence or not, Valens could be hearing at this point a Senecan echo. Ando 1996.180, n. 42 suggests that Themistius' professed ignorance of Latin is mere posturing. ! $%! uttered by one or other of the ancient emperors; rather, you have here in your court a Phoenix and guide for your words and deeds. (Or. 6.81c) 77 Themistius' reference to "words and deeds" (ῥητέων καὶ τῶν πρακτέων) evokes the Homeric Phoenix' educational ideal of making his pupil "a speaker of words and doer of deeds" (Iliad 9.443: µύθων τε ῥητῆρ' ἔµεναι πρηκτῆρά τε ἔργων). 78 That Themistius uses the word ἐξηγητής here (translated above as "guide") might be significant. Themistius-the adviser or new Phoenix is offering to become the "expounder" and "interpreter," for Valens, of the old, Homeric Phoenix and his educational values. 79 But while this self-projection of the panegyrist as the emperor's Phoenix is a positive take on the Iliadic teacher, in a number of other speeches Themistius performs for himself the "panegyrische Überbietung" in which he would otherwise engage on behalf of his laudandi. Themistius disparages the Iliadic Phoenix as an utter disgrace and failure of a teacher: he was an exile, who had wronged his father by sleeping with his concubine (Or. 9.123d); he glutted the young Achilles with food and wine instead of teaching him how to be a philosopher -how to subdue his anger and sexual desire (Or. 18.224d); he bragged about being Achilles' educator, but neglected to eradicate wrath and erôs from his pupil's soul (Erôtikos, 173d). Themistius' confident and explicit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! $&! presentation of himself as superior to the ineffectual tutor of Achilles is a good place at which to end this investigation of Homeric exemplarity in late antique panegyric: it shows how, by hollowing out, belittling, and rejecting Iliadic paradigms, the panegyrists elevate their own status and place themselves and their speeches in a position from which they can safely instruct the emperor and claim glory in their own right.