Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome

Reviewed by: Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works by Simon Swain Robert J. Penella Simon Swain. Themistius, Julian, and Greek Political Theory under Rome: Texts, Translations, and Studies of Four Key Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Pp. vi, 224. $95.00. ISBN 978–1-107–02657–5. Simon Swain is that rara avis, a Hellenist who commands Arabic. In the book under review, he provides original texts, English translations (124–207), and studies (1–122) of the Stobaean Greek excerpts from Sopater’s Letter to Himerius; of Themistius’ Letter to Julian, which survives only in Arabic; of Julian’s Letter to Themistius in Greek; and of ps.-Aristotle’s Letter to Alexander on the Government of the Cities, which again survives only in Arabic. All four texts are in the business of giving political advice. The first three are, in their original Greek, from the fourth century; Swain dates the original Greek text of ps.-Aristotle to the high Roman Empire. These are the first English translations of Sopater, Themistius, and ps.-Aristotle. The Greek text of Julian is “very lightly revised,” and the Arabic text of ps.-Aristotle is “corrected.” The two central texts are Themistius and Julian. Themistius’ Letter, after a philosophical introduction, offers general advice on kingship. It also has a distinctive “economic” interest in wealth, exchange, and the crafts. The economic section, Swain contends, was influenced by Bryson’s Management of the Estate (first century A.D.?), a work that survives only in Arabic. Swain argues for the basic genuineness of the Letter, with no serious deformation in its passage to Arabic, and does not challenge the evidence that Julian was its addressee. He maintains that the Christian Nemesius read and was influenced by the Letter at the end of the fourth century. Explanations are offered for the absence in the Letter of certain ideas that are prominent in Themistius’ panegyrical orations, as well as for its lack of any of the typical references to the Greek classics and the classical Greek world. The Letter belongs to a distinct paraenetic genre, whose generic advice may seem banal to us. The second central text is Julian’s Letter to Themistius, which was written in response to a lost letter of Themistius to him. Swain convincingly dates Julian’s letter to early in his Caesarship (perhaps spring of 356). In his response to Themistius, the Caesar expresses displeasure about what Themistius had said [End Page 442] to him, in a context of inordinate praise, about kingship and the life of action. Themistius’ faux pas in his lost letter was in line with an ongoing problematic relationship with Julian, whether or not he held the eastern urban prefecture under that emperor. Swain suggests that Themistius’ Letter was an attempt to fix the faux pas of the original lost letter to Julian and to offer Julian more palatable advice. The other two texts of this book do service to the Themistian and Julianic texts. Sopater’s letter to his brother Himerius advises him on how to govern a province. It is “a more standard political letter” of the fourth century that “set[s] the scene” for Themistius and Julian (1). But, on Swain’s own admission, Sopater’s letter of political advice is in the mold of those of the more important Iamblichus. So why not include those? (Perhaps because they had just been translated into English a few years earlier by J. Dillon and W. Polleichtner?) Ps.-Aristotle’s Letter “offer[s] useful comparisons for the main texts studied here” (8), but so would other texts, for example, the Neopythagorean kingship literature. So what is brought together in this volume is something of a mélange. On the other hand, an Arabist has good reason for linking the letters of Themistius and ps.-Aristotle: they are the only two genuine Greek treatises of political thought and advice that went into Arabic. Swain’s learned and rigorous discussions are not always an easy read. They ramify in many directions; in places the book seems to want to become a broader monograph on imperial kingship discourse. There is much reconstruction

Ancient history · Arabic · Art · Classical Arabic · Empire · Key (lock) · Linguistics · Literature · Monarchy · Political science · Politics · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classics · Computer Science · History · Law · Philosophy