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 firstly 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 first 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 specific 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 different 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 different theory suggesting Nazarius as the editor of this early col-
lection, see Barnes 2011, 182–3.

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

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 86 7/20/2014 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 refine 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 first 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 different 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 different 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 Virtues

The 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 87 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 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 identifies 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 benefit 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 find qualities that would have been appreciated by people who
had suffered 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 personified 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).

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 88 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 89

between Maximian and Constantine,14 although it does not reappear in the

collection until 321 ce, where it occurs five 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 fifty 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), fiducia (confidence), severitas (severity), duritia (hard-
ness), ferocitas (fierceness), and vis (force). Although fortitudo, alacritas, and
fiducia 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 classified 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 89 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 90 Journal of Late Antiquity

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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 90 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 91

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 difference 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 (first
youth, 3.3.), pueritia (boyhood, 4.1), iuvenis (youth, 4.1), and adulescentia
(youth, 4.2). The first 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 reflection 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 91 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 92 Journal of Late Antiquity

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 different way, showing bodily strength,
corporis vigor, and fire 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 personified 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 firmitas (firmness, 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 officially 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 92 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 93

affiliation 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 definitely 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 qualified. 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).

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 93 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 94 Journal of Late Antiquity

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 significant 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 field is finally 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 filius 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 94 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 95

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 flocks 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 fiducia 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—suffering, 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 qualified and the qualifica-
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 offensam 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 95 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 96 Journal of Late Antiquity

Grouping these virtues together makes them the canon that distinguishes
Constantine’s military personality. It is, without question, a brutal one that
redefines 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 suffered 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 significant that severitas is the fi rst qual-
ity in the panegyric that Constantine does not inherit from his father, and the
cynical redefinition of the canonical virtus and clementia in the shadow of
severitas is not meant to go unremarked. The orator demands attention when
he justifies 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
Litchfield 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
dignified 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 96 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 97

in self-justification, 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 effective. 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
unspecified 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 finally 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 97 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 98 Journal of Late Antiquity

manner unpleasing to his clementia (20.1). But that is later. The description
of Constantine’s stern virtues is literally and figuratively central to the pan-
egyric, and the intertextual parallels clearly delineate the difference between
father and son. The fact that the virtues themselves are qualified and redefined
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 Protreptic

To 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 flattery.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. Different 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 reflection 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 flexing 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 effective 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 98 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 99

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 specifically, 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 defined 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 99 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 100 Journal of Late Antiquity

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 figure 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 100 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 101

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 definition 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 firm and
eternal guardian of empire (hic firmus, 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 fortifies 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’ sacrifice of the sons of Sulmo is usually interpreted as
a parallel for Augustus’ sacrifice 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 101 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 102 Journal of Late Antiquity

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), beneficium (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 defined 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 clementia

One question remains to be addressed. Constantine may be different from the
tyrants but he is also different 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 definition 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
definitions 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 102 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 103

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 flaw as it signifies 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 definition 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 offences 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 103 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 104 Journal of Late Antiquity

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 finds 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 crucified 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 different person-
alities.74 Pliny’s panegyric summed up the dichotomy: “in all your inquiries,
how gentle your severity, how firm your mercy.”75 Both qualities are nec-
essary to a ruler but firmness and mercy may demand different 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 sacrifice 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 difference between earned and inherited power, good rulers and
tyrants, and the most effective means of obtaining one’s end. The questions
in this panegyric are related. When is severitas justified 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.
Ci
c. Off. 1.9–10 describes how choices are made, the role of expediency and the difficulty 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 superficial 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 104 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 105

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 effect 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 crucified for possess-
ing a weapon exemplified 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 defined as divine (or
imperial) benefits to mankind.82 Constantine’s severitas, therefore, is genu-
inely justified, 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 defined as pius, who
displayed clementia, misericordia, and venia. An essential difference 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 difficulties 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 105 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 106 Journal of Late Antiquity

severitas and crudelitas is character, and the cruel ruler is one whose harsh
nature enjoys inflicting 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 different aspects of the same virtues as they are
required at different times. Constantius showed clementia and misericordia to
the inhabitants of Britain who had sympathized with the usurper Carausius,
a justifiable 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 fierce 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 Edinburgh
Catherine.Ware@ed.ac.uk

References
Ahl, 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 106 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 107

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 Pfeiffer, 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 107 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 108 Journal of Late Antiquity

L’Huillier, Marie-Claude. 1992. L’empire des mots. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Litchfield, 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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 108 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM

 WARE ^ The Severitas of Constantine 109

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.

JLA 7.1 1st pages.indd 109 7/20/2014 10:34:57 PM