Andrew Stone Imperial Types in Byzantine Panegyric The purpose of this study is to look at the ways in which six different Byzantine emperors were praised in contemporary prose encomia. The six that I have chosen – Basil I, Constantine IX Monomachos, Michael VII Doukas (son of Constantine X Doukas), Alexios I Komnenos, Manuel I Komnenos and Isaac II Angelos – are particularly interesting because they illustrate the way in which different rhetors praised different emperors, and how a virtue was made of individualising topics. It was always customary for rhetors to praise their subjects for the four primary virtues of courage, prudence, temperance and justice, after the manner of mainstream panegyrics. Family, birth or the genos and the homeland or patris were also often mentioned. This study, however, intends to look at more individualistic topics, or the emphasis of some of these standard topics above others. Even if for the most part stock topoi were used, specific themes, and individual combinations or permutations of them, could be matched to the recipient of the orations or laudandus. Then, it is by no means rarely that some encomia praise the laudandus for qualities more properly specific to him.1 I have sought to illustrate the more specific themes or combination of themes, since the orations for five of our six emperors could be regarded as more individualised than most. Essential for the imperial image above all in the case of any emperor was praise for the virtue of aristeia or heroic bravery of some kind, particularly in the battlefield. Aristeia was the hallmark of Homeric heroes and warrior kings such as Alexander the Great. Byzantine emperors, even a largely irenic one like Michael VII, were required to be seen to possess this virtue. An emperor could be praised for his victories, or, when he was not personally present on the battlefield, the peace that his armies had achieved. Let us begin with Basil I. His son Leo VI the Wise composed an epitaphios or funeral oration for his father.2 Early in the oration Leo diverges slightly from the traditional kind of opening by stating that in the case of someone who has achieved great things, emphasis on his noble ancestry is unnecessary (although he then proceeds to give an account of Basil’s forebears).3 Leo does this because of his concern with avoiding the question of the legitimacy of the new “Macedonian” dynasty since Basil was a usurper and a regicide, with Michael III’s blood on his hands. Accordingly, a modification of the standard formula was advisable, so that the rhetor could demonstrate both his father’s and his own worthiness for empire. Leo the Wise’s oration is a good place to start when considering the nature of basilikoi logoi. This is because, much more than the orations for the other five emperors that I have selected, it openly seeks to demonstrate that the author is going to conform to the legitimate template – this it does by outlining what features are appropriate for panegyric.4 This will 1 To be sure, praise for different emperors for multifarious reasons, has been noted, such as by Ruth Webb, “Praise and Persuasion: Argumentation and Audience Response in Epideictic Oratory”, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium: Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (Aldershot 2003), 134–135. 2 Leo VI the Wise, “Oraison funèbre de Basile I”, eds. A. Vogt and S.I. Hausherr (Orientalia Christiana XXVI–1) 77, 5–79; henceforth referred to as Leo VI. 3 Leo VI, 42–46. 4 See n. 5. 174 Imperial Types in Byzantine Panegyric allow us to determine what was standard and what was particular, if we compare the epitaphios for Basil I to the encomia for other emperors. Before launching into his brief account of the appropriate features for imperial rhetoric, Leo also calls upon a topos in which the author asserts that his encomium does not employ any fiction5 – we may call this the truth topos, employed also most notably by Anna Komnene in her Alexiad (also particularising) and Michael Psellos.6 He follows by describing an accomplishment belonging to his father alone: an irrigation project drawing upon a river unspecified. Not all emperors busied themselves with such projects, so we may regard this as particularising. Individual accomplishments, when they can be found, are as important as, if not more important than, topoi, or “clichés” if you like, in encomia of this kind. After the recognition of the other conventions that should be followed by basilikoi logoi, homeland and family are recognised as necessary subjects to be included in such an oration. Once again, this is all to do with the usual legitimation of the dynasty of an emperor. 7 There is nothing to be gained by paying attention to his family. For even if the rules of encomia send us in search of the subject’s native country and family, such a rule would not be advantageous for the present undertaking; it is clear that it is those who have no way of dignifying themselves through their own achievements who need to collect material from their ancestry. Leo is seeking here to excuse his imperial father’s lack of a suitably imperial ancestry. Ordinarily, says Menander Rhetor, in his treatise on basilikoi logoi, an emperor without a distinguished homeland or family should have these topics passed over.8 In this case, however, the orator strikes another note: the superiority of being the establisher of one dynasty over being merely the continuer of another.9 Vogt’s comment on the all-important history of Basil’s reign traditionally held to be written by his grandson Constantine VII reminds us that the glorification of the founder of this dynasty continued to be a preoccupation of his successors.10 Pour l’époque qui nous occupe une oeuvre de grand importance se présente tout d’abord à nous: c’est la Vie de Basile que composa son petit-fils, empereur Constantine VII. Écrite entre 945 et 959 par un homme qui fut surtout un souverain de cabinet, car il fut historien, artiste, litterateur et point du tout soldat, elle a pour but de glorifier et perpétuer l’illustre et chère memoire du fondateur de la maison macédonienne. Next, after speaking briefly of Basil as a transplanter into the imperial garden (that is, the settling of foreigners within the bounds of the Empire),11 Leo comments on his father’s stature.12 5 Leo VI, 38.22–26. 6 See below, n. 48. 7 Leo VI, 42.24–44.4. 8 Menandros Rhetor, Basilikos Logos, edited by D.A. Russell & N.G. Wilson (Oxford 1981), 80 (Greek), 81 (English). 9 Leo VI, 44.5–7. 10 Vogt, Basile I Empeurer de Byzance 867–886 et la civilisation Byzantine à la fin du xie siecle (New York 1908, repr. 1972), v–vi; for the biography of Basil I by Constantine VII, Vom Bauernhof auf den Kaiserthron: das Lebend des Kaisers Basileios I, ed. L. Breyer (Graz-Wien-Köln 1981), henceforth called Life of Basil. .