Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Michigan, 1934. / "Bibliographical note": p. [ix]-xi.

Thèse--Faculté des lettres de Paris. / "Liste des ouvrages consultés": p. [13]-14.

Inauguraldiss. Phil.-hist. Fak. Bern, 1986.

A total of sixty-four orations survive from the hand of Libanius. Four of these speeches were delivered under the reign of Constantius II (AD 337-361) and thus form a distinct chronological cluster in the Libanian corpus. The Constantian orations include Or. 59 To Constantius II and Constans (AD 346-9), Or. 11 The Antiochikos (AD 356), Or. 61 Monody on Nicomedia (AD 358), and Or. 61 For the teachers (AD 360-1). This study adopts a diachronic approach and analyses the historical and literary context of each Constantian oration with a particular focus on Libanius' self- presentation. The study suggests that Libanius' self-presentation was characterised by adaptability and versatility; it shows Libanius exploring a range of different genres and communicating with attentiveness to context and audience. The thesis also argues that Libanius' attitude to and engagement with Constantius' court fluctuated significantly from the delivery of Libanius' panegyric in the mid- to late 340s where Libanius supported Constantius after his defeat in the battle of Singara, over Libanius' encomium to Antioch in 356 where Libanius emphasised the strong connection between the Emperor and the city following the devastating reign of Gallus Caesar, to the delivery of For the teachers in 360-361, where Libanius publically voiced his criticism of the Emperor's cultural and religious policies after Libanius himself had lost imperial funding. Furthermore, the study displays the continued importance of oratory in Late Antiquity and emphasises the central role of sophists both as commentators and mediators in society.

Texte remanié de: Diss.--Fachbereich Geschichtswissenschaften--Marburg--Philipps-Universität, 1994. / Bibliogr. p. 383-399. Index.

Tesi di dottorato--Storia politica e culturale dell'Antichità classica--Firenze--Università degli studi, 2002. / Bibliogr. p. 140-151.

Th. 3e cycle--Lettres--Paris, 1971. / Réunit les discours 6-8 et 25 intitulés "De l'insatisfaction", "La richesse mal acquise est un malheur pire que la pauvreté", "De la pauvreté ou des amis", "De l'esclavage" Bibliogr. p. 9-13. Index.

Oration 30 (Or. 30) has been commonly used in scholarship as positive affirmation of religious violence and temple destruction in late Antique Syria. This view of widespread violence in late 4th century Syria was previously supported by scholarship on temple destruction and conversion, which tended to argue that temple destruction and conversion was a widespread phenomenon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Recent archaeological scholarship, however, argues against this perspective, in favour of temple destruction and conversion being a rather exceptional and late phenomenon. The question must therefore be asked, to what extent can Libanius’ Or. 30 be used as a source of temple destruction in the Antiochene countryside in Late Antiquity? This question is explored through three chapters which examine: the text and context of Or. 30, the use and application of Roman law in Or. 30, and the archeological evidence for temple destruction and conversion in the Antiochene countryside. This research has revealed that Libanius tends to use similar arguments in his ‘reform speeches,’ that there was no legal basis for temple destruction in the late 4th century, and that there is no archaeological evidence for widespread temple destruction occurring around the composition of Or. 30. Thus, the evidence shows that Libanius’ claim of widespread violence must be seen as an exaggeration. Meaning that Or. 30 cannot be used to support the idea of widespread destruction and religious violence in the Antiochene countryside at the end of the 4th century or, for that matter, Late Antiquity in general.

Oration 30 (Or. 30) has been commonly used in scholarship as positive affirmation of religious violence and temple destruction in late Antique Syria. This view of widespread violence in late 4th century Syria was previously supported by scholarship on temple destruction and conversion, which tended to argue that temple destruction and conversion was a widespread phenomenon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Recent archaeological scholarship, however, argues against this perspective, in favour of temple destruction and conversion being a rather exceptional and late phenomenon. The question must therefore be asked, to what extent can Libanius’ Or. 30 be used as a source of temple destruction in the Antiochene countryside in Late Antiquity? This question is explored through three chapters which examine: the text and context of Or. 30, the use and application of Roman law in Or. 30, and the archeological evidence for temple destruction and conversion in the Antiochene countryside. This research has revealed that Libanius tends to use similar arguments in his ‘reform speeches,’ that there was no legal basis for temple destruction in the late 4th century, and that there is no archaeological evidence for widespread temple destruction occurring around the composition of Or. 30. Thus, the evidence shows that Libanius’ claim of widespread violence must be seen as an exaggeration. Meaning that Or. 30 cannot be used to support the idea of widespread destruction and religious violence in the Antiochene countryside at the end of the 4th century or, for that matter, Late Antiquity in general.

Oration 30 (Or. 30) has been commonly used in scholarship as positive affirmation of religious violence and temple destruction in late Antique Syria. This view of widespread violence in late 4th century Syria was previously supported by scholarship on temple destruction and conversion, which tended to argue that temple destruction and conversion was a widespread phenomenon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Recent archaeological scholarship, however, argues against this perspective, in favour of temple destruction and conversion being a rather exceptional and late phenomenon. The question must therefore be asked, to what extent can Libanius’ Or. 30 be used as a source of temple destruction in the Antiochene countryside in Late Antiquity? This question is explored through three chapters which examine: the text and context of Or. 30, the use and application of Roman law in Or. 30, and the archeological evidence for temple destruction and conversion in the Antiochene countryside. This research has revealed that Libanius tends to use similar arguments in his ‘reform speeches,’ that there was no legal basis for temple destruction in the late 4th century, and that there is no archaeological evidence for widespread temple destruction occurring around the composition of Or. 30. Thus, the evidence shows that Libanius’ claim of widespread violence must be seen as an exaggeration. Meaning that Or. 30 cannot be used to support the idea of widespread destruction and religious violence in the Antiochene countryside at the end of the 4th century or, for that matter, Late Antiquity in general.