THEMISTIUS' FIRST ORATION Downey, Glanville Greek and Byzantine Studies; Jul 1, 1958; 1, 1; ProQuest pg. 49

THEMISTIUS' 

FIRST 
ORATION 

GLANVILLE DOWNEY 

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D. C. 

T HE FULL SIGNIFICANCE of the career of Themistius for the 
history of the fourth century after Christ, and for the de­

velopment of ancient political theory, is not yet a matter of 
common knowledge among scholars, in part because the most 
modern edition of his orations, that of Wilhelm Dindorf, was 
published as long ago as 1832 and has now become extremely 
rare. 1 The handsome edition published by the Jesuit scholar 
Harduin at Paris in 1684 is in fact easier to obtain today.2 It is 
hoped that the lack of an easily accessible text may soon be 
remedied, since the present writer is preparing a new edition of 
the text, with English translation and commentary; this edition 
will embody the studies of the text by the Austrian scholar 
Heinrich Schenkl, which were left incomplete at his early death 

IThemistii Ora/iones ex codice Mediolanensi emendatae a G. Dindor/ (Leipzig, 
1832). It was thanks to the generosity of Harold North Fowler that I was able 
to obtain a copy of this text. 

2'fhemistii Ora/iones XXXIII ... (Parisiis, In typographia regia, 1684). 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

some years ago. We can also look forward to a detailed study of 
Themistius' political ideas which will form a part of the com­
prehensive study of ancient political theory now being prepared 
by Professor F. Dvornik of Dumbarton Oaks. 

In the meantime, it may be useful to publish a translation 
of Themistius' first, and very characteristic oration, «On Love 
of Mankind; or, Cons tan ti us" (n E Q1 qnAav3Qwn:i a~ l) Kwvo'tav­

'no;) . which is in many ways the most characteristic of his 
political discourses. 

When the oration was delivered before the Emperor Con­
stantius, probably in A.D. 350, Themistius was about 33 years 
old, and had been conducting a school in Constantinople for 
about five years, having come to the new capital in A.D. 
337, when he was about 20 years old. s Themistius must have 
realized the supreme importance, for himself, of his initial 
appearance before the emperor, and he must have selected his 
theme, and considered his treatment of it, with care. As a 
pagan man of letters aspiring to the favor of a Christian em­
peror who ruled an incompletely converted empire, Themistius 
was in a delicate though not isolated position; not the least 
reason for the exercise of tact would have been the presence 
in the emperor's court of both pagans and Christians. Many 
(though not all) of the political ideas which Themistius devel­
oped in orations delivered later in his career (his last discourses 
were delivered to Theodosius I) appear in this oration to Con­
stantius. 

In modern times Themistius' views have been discussed 
in various aspects by several scholars, including V. Valden­
berg,~ E. H. Kantorowicz,:' and the present writer. 6 Character-

"On Themistius' life and works, see W. Stegemann, "Themistios," Pauly-Wissowa­
Kroll, Realencyc/opiidie, 5A, cols. 1642-1680. 

~V. Vaiden berg, "Discours politiques de Themistius dans leur rapport avec 
l'antiquite," Byzantion 1 (1924), 557-580. 

:sE. H. Kantorowicz, "Kaiser Friedrich II. und das Konigsbild des Hellenismus," 
Varia Variorum: Festgabe fur Karl Reinhardt (Munster, 1952), 171; "On 
Transformations of Apolline Ethics," Charites: Festchrift Ernst Langlotz (Bonn, 
1957), 267, 270-271. 

6G. Downey, "Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century 
after Christ," Historia, 4 (1955), 199-208; "Education and Public Problems 

50 



T bemistius' First Oration 

istic extracts from his fifth oration, addressed to the Emperor 
Jovian (A.D. 363-364), have also been presented by Sir Ernest 
Barker in his collection of political texts of the period from 
Constantine the Great to the end of the fourth century.' Pend­
ing the appearance of the new edition, the present translation 
may serve to introduce wider circles to his work. 

The text followed is that printed by Dindorf, and the 
numbers of the pages in Dindorf's edition are given within 
square brackets. Words or phrases added by the translator to 
make the meaning clearer are enclosed within square brackets. 

T hemistius, Oration 1. 

ON LOVE OF MANKIND; OR, CONSTANTIUS. 

[ 1] Now for the first time there comes to you, 0 Emperor, 
a discourse which is free and sincere in its praise, and cannot of 
its own accord offer even the smallest statement that it can­
not justify in the eyes of philosophy. Wherefore it is needful 
for it to praise only the things which we admire. In you, it 
admires one good quality, namely that of your soul, more than 
all your possessions together. Most admirers see ra ther, and 
sing in their discourses, things such as the expanse of the realm, 
the number of subjects, the invincible regiments of infantry 
and the troops of cavalry and the abundance of their equipment 
and the enormous screens of weapons and the dragons on the 
delicate banners, raised on high on gilded shafts, filled and 
shaken by the breeze. The more elegant of those speakers come 
a little nearer to yourself and lay hold of your crown and your 

as Seen by Themistius," TransactiotlS of the American Pbilological ASJocialioll, 
86 (1955), 291-307; "Education in the Christian Roman Empire: Christian 
and Pagan Theories under Constantine and his Successors," Specuillm, 32 (19'57), 
56-61; "Themistius and the Defense of Hellenism in the Fourth Century," 
H<lrt'<lrd Theological Ret·jew, '50 (19'57),2'59-274. 

7E. Barker, From Alexander to Constantine (Oxford, 1956), 377-380. The 
chronological limits of the book indicated in the title are not wholly accurate, 
since Synesius and Themistius are included. 

51 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

robe and your strong girdle and the gleaming colors of your 
tunic. Some, again, think that they come into even closer 
touch with you when they describe your armed dances and the 
light leapings in full armor and curvettings on horses, [2] and 
they very properly praise the body which is thus prepared, in 
the third generation of imperial blood,' for the labors it will 
have to endure. 

But these men perhaps do not know that every emperor 
is able to do only a little, with his hands and with his whole 
body, toward the preservation of his realm, in comparison with 
what he can accomplish by the power of his intellect; and the 
man who is able to perceive that power of intellect is the man 
who is able to comprehend the true emperor and to admire 
yourself, not your possessions. The men of whom I spoke ex­
perience what they deserve. There is simply something about 
the soul which makes it more difficult to show itself than the 
body, and while the eyes of most men see the latter at once, 
they are incapable of perceiving the former. The things that 
surround an emperor outwardly, being variegated and pleasing 
to the eye, cheat the sight of the things that dwell within, just 
as, I am sure, the outer gates of some holy shrine, ornamented 
with rich masonry and painting, divert the spectator to them­
selves and by occupying their attention often prevent them 
from seeing the temple. But even in that case the sober and 
pious man makes his way into the sanctuary, while the crowd 
remains outside, beguiled like cattle by the adornment round 
about the temple. If what I mean is not yet clear, let us throw 
more light on our discourse from an example which I believe 
is even more exalted. In the case of the god, whose works and 
creations all these things are, is it equally easy to see both him ' 
and his works? Or is it for the sake of these latter that nature 
from the very beginning has given us eyes, so that when we 
open them we can see the sun and the moon and the other 
stars and the whole of heaven, while to see God himself is an 

.Themistius refers to Constantius Chlorus and Constantine the Great, grandfather 
and father of Constantius. See the genealogical table in A. A. Vasiliev, History of 
Ibe Byzantine Empire (Madison, 1952), 727. 

52 



Themistius' First Oration 

object of yearning only to the man who in due time reaches 
this object after having passed through those other things?2 

But since our discourse has been so successful [3] in reach­
ing such a fitting and very beautiful picture of the subject, 
let us allow ourselves to be borne along on this and complete 
the remainder of the theme. Just as, in fact, his deeds reveal 
the nature of God, so do the emperor's actions make plain his 
own nature to those who are capable of being guided from 
deeds to the doer of them. Whither, then, do these deeds take 
us, and what sort of road do they show us? Not that difficult 
and dark kind, such as those paths to which most tyrants de­
scend, as though to caverns, but a broad one which preserves its 
tracks so that they can be seen from afar; not that kind of road 
that leads finally to some wild and cruel beast, a bear, a boar or 
a lion, clothed with the name of emperor, but the kind of path 
that leads to the most peaceable and gentle of all, a heavenly 
creature which possesses a divine and modest nature, granted by 
heaven for watchful care over men here on earth. 

Before we begin to follow in his footsteps, let us agree on 
what message concerning him we shall preach in our discourse. 
All you who are steered by the same helm, if you find in this 
discourse anything which in the least way cheats you, you must 
revile it and thrust it from you and cast it away from philos­
ophy, because it does not perform righteous things or things 
which are consonant with the laws of philosophy. But in every 
respect in which it gives praise, in all these points it will be 
telling the truth; and here do not be angry with it and con­
sider that it flatters rather than praises, for nothing is more 
hostile to truth than flattery, while true praise is testimony to 
virtue. Every man, in fact, bears witness rightly to that which 
he knows. Just as the man who understands each of these things 
is a reliable witness, so are those men who perceive virtue re­
liable witnesses to it. 

2Themistius speaJ.<:s of the monotheistic supreme being in which many pagans, 
including Themistius himself, believed at this period. When Themistius uses 
Greek theos in this sense, I have written "God" since this seems to be the only 
way to represent the conception which Themistius had in mind. 

53 



Greek and Byzanti11e Studies 

You understand, then, what my discourse comprises, 
namely the theme that only philosophers are witnesses to virtue. 
But in addition to my own message, my friends, let it also be 
understood that it is your words-those that you utter all the 
time concerning the emperor, in the market-places, in the 
theatres, [4] in your homes, in the baths, while sailing, while 
journeying, while at leisure, while at work-all of which the 
discourse has put together to make our collective gift; and 
what you hear thoughtfully from us is only that which you say 
at random to each other. If you tell lies, you will likewise hear 
lies; but if you tell the truth, we shall give your own back to 
you. But you do speak the truth; for you would not have 
said these things had you been lying. Consider my words, then, 
to see whether you recognize them as your own. 

Indeed you sing and praise to each other a certain special 
virtue of the emperor. Shall I speak the name of this virtue? 
But I know that you who are present will acclaim this name 
and snatch it, still half-formed, from my lips. And yet I have 
said to you only what I have taken from you, and I do not 
pretend that it is a discovery of my own. Your word, indeed, 
is a very little one, with not many syllables; but I give it back 
to you like a coin, adding the power of the name as interest. 

As for myself, I consider the benevolene emperor to be 
perfect in the virtue needed for the business in hand, and I 
believe that nothing is lacking in him to make him worthy of 
complete praise. Attend, then, to my discourse. Does it seem 
to you the conduct of a benevolent man to commit injustice 
and to harm men and conspire against them and to do things of 
this sort as though he hated them? Or would it be ridiculous 
to think this? Why, yes; in such affairs it would be necessary , 
for such a man to be just. What then? Should the benevolent 
man wish to behave intemperately toward mankind, and com­
mlt violence against it? Or not at all? How, then, can he . 
prove the name to be true? Here again the name proves his 

aGr. philanthropon (accusative). Successive uses of the word are not specifically 
noted in the translation. 

54 



T hemistius' First Oration 

self-control. When a man loves something and values it highly, 
would he hand it over to an enemy who was seeking to destroy 
it, or would he defend it with all his strength and ward off the 
harm? Which of these is it the more fitting to call the brave 
man? The man who, while he fights off the wrath of others, 
himself [5] destroys his children through his own wrath? Or 
is it rather the role of benevolence not to be overcome by 
anger? What else, in justice, can mildness and reasonableness 
and gentleness be called? You see how, when I knock on that 
little wood, to test it, the whole swarm of the virtues sounds 
forth in response,4 or rather the discourse proceeds on its own 
way and it does not bar the emperor from going forward more 
safely. For when he possesses the soul of an emperor, and 
demonstrates that all good things are bound up in this, then 
he demonstrates, in addition, what sort of thing this benevo­
lence is. Is he not as far removed from greediness as from 
cruelty, or as far from arrogance as from savageness? If we 
speak of intemperance, do we not harm the word itself? For 
he does not consider that happiness consists of luxurious living, 
but in doing the fairest deeds, and he guards his soul with 
reason rather than his body with soldiers, so that he can be 
attacked by no passion. He will understand, I am sure, that he 
must first rule himself who wishes to rule others; and that it 
is shameful, when the athletes at the Olympic games take the 
greatest care of themselves, by means of diet and exercise, for 
the champion of the whole world to expose himself unrestrain­
edly to pleasures. Nevertheless, I find that the thing which has 
supplied all these qualities to him is his innate love of mankind. 
The reason for this you may learn from me. 

Just as we say that one virtue is the property of man, 
another that of dogs, and another that of horses, this one, I 

believe, is characteristic of an emperor, and is imperial before 

all others; and to it the rest are bound, as though they rose 
up to a single peak. Moreover, if we scrutinize each of the 

other virtues carefully, by itself, as though we were turning 

'Plato, Theaefetus, 179 D. 

55 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

over a COIn, [6] we shall find none which bears the imperial 
character so clearly marked as that which is called courage. 
This indeed must belong to the emperor, just like all other good 
qualities. However, if you handle this virtue alone, it does not 
possess the imperial stamp, but you will see marked upon it 
rather the character of the soldier or the general; and it is a 
great glory for a high commander and for a captain to be 
braver than most men. What then is patience? Or self-control? 
Are they not, for individuals, healthy conditions of the soul?"; 
I maintain that justness, that celebrated virtue, is the fairest 
possession for an emperor. What indeed is more divine than a 
man who is just although it is in his power to do wrong? And 
moderation is very similar. What, then, is the use of a ruler 
who is not free? Such is the tyrant, who rules others and at 
the same time makes himself a slave to his passions. N everthe­
less, in the case of all of these, there is one thing which I feel. 
Each of them, if one considers them individually, is a kind of 
common adornment of mankind, which only becomes imperial 
when love of mankind sets its stamp upon it, just as the divine 
stamp, on being set upon plain gold, which hitherto has ex­
hibited merely the beauty of the gold itself, transforms it into 
a divine likeness. 

Let Homer come to speak to us, and let him say, concern­
ing love of mankind, that it is a fair thing:6 uNever did mine 
eyes behold a thing so beautiful or so royal; for it is like unto 
a king." The particular type of virtue that belongs to each man 
is, I believe, useful to him if it dwells in him, and in the same 
way is a great harm if he does not possess it. What is there 
of an imperial quality in a farmer being mild, or a cobbler? 
How does his mildness help the majority of mankind, when 
his neighbors hardly know him? How can it fail to be ridic­

ulous to attribute love of mankind to a weaver or an artisan, 
dwelling in a modest little house, [7] who because of his toil 
and constant labor hardly ever goes out of doors? Such a man 

:;Plato, Republic, 444 D; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VII, 7, 4 (1l50a, 35) . 

.. Iliad, III, 169-170. 

56 



T hemistius' First Oration 

will suffer, if he be not exceedingly discreet and gentle. But 
when that man has a placid aspect "to whom all peoples are 
entrusted and so many cares belong,"7 this is the happiness that 

is common to all. The shipowner or the merchant will not pray 

that the Chalcidian strait will be calm-for how many are 

there who either sail it or see it?-but the Hellespont and the 

Aegean and the Ionian Sea, which all freight-ships sail. And 

so if the emperor's soul does not seethe, nor do the gusts of anger 

and rage blow wildly on it and stir it up, easily fanned as they 

are by small causes, then it is possible for not only merchants 

and sailors, but for all men as well to sail through life in safety, 

both the man who embarks on a great ship and the one who 

goes on a little skiff, the former with its rudder, the latter 

depending on its oars. But if one wishes to be a passenger with­
out having paid a contribution, even though the voyage is per­

mitted to him, he will find himself without a wind, becalmed 

and stationary. 

It is dangerous, indeed, for a private citizen to be seized 
easily by anger, but more dangerous in the case of a man in 
whose power it is to do whatever he wishes when he is angry. 
For myself, I consider that anger is a brief period of madness, 
but even so the man who thus becomes mad through weakness 
is less harmful to those about him than the man who does so 
with force and vigor. The one might have to do only with 
himself, but the disease of the other affects other people as well. 
How many people, indeed, would Polydamas or Glaucus," when 
melancholy, beat or slay? Whole tribes and nations, however, 
would feel the anger of Cambyses.9 

There are many qualities of the emperor that I admire; 

but more than all the rest I admire him for having melted the 

passionate quality of his soul, like iron, and for having rendered 

7 Iliad, II, 25, 62. 

,.These two figures in Homer are apparently cited as examples of men who would 
not normally be subject to fits of melancholy. 

9Son of Cyrus the Great and king of Persia 529-521 B.C.; he is described by 
Herodotus as a mad and savage tyrant. 

57 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

it merciful instead of cruel, or rather serviceable instead of 
harmful. [8] For it does not allow him to break loose from 

reason, nor does it allow him, like a horse bi ting its bridle, to 
scorn the driver, who, being the only savior of virtue in the 
soul, dwells throughout life in the man who possesses him. 

Anger I consider an indulgence more dangerous than sensual 

pleasure. This latter everyone who is not wholly corrupt will 
promptly flee because of its great harshness, which plainly fits 

it only for slaves; and for this reason, perhaps, the commoner 
sort of insignificant men seem to be superior to this indulgence, 
while only a very few men can rise wholly above anger. This 
movement of the soul, in fact, being considered manly and 
noble, steals in upon many people the more easily under the 
guise of a virtue. 

You may learn from this also that love of mankind is more 
kingly than all the rest of the band of virtues. The king of 
all heavenlO is not called moderate or capable of endurance or 
brave by mankind. What, indeed, could be alarming to him 

that he should be in need of courage, or what could be toilsome, 
that he should overcome it with endurance? What are bodily 
pleasures to him, that he should not conquer them with self­
control? If justice consists of the making of covenants and 
the maintenance of relations with those who are in agree­
ment with us, how could there be any stain, in this respect, 
on the life of him who is above all contracts? But as I said, we 
consider these names unworthy of God, as being trifling and 
inferior; but when we call him lover of mankind we do him 
no dishonor. The reason for this is that the mind of man is so 
made as to consider beneath himself everything that he can 

find in something which proceeds from himself. Thus our mind 

ascribes supersubstantial substance and power of higher power 
and superlatively good goodness to the fount of all things, but 
does this hesitantly, [9] and takes care over the association of 

... This again is the monotheistic Supreme Being in whom Themistius and his peers 
believed. 

58 



T hemistius' First Oration 

the words." However, even though it feels th us, it does not view 
[the name of] love of mankind with suspicion, but takes glory 
in the name as though it had discovered something peculiarly 
becoming. How then is that man not truly blessed, who is 
able to share this virtue with God? How then can this orna­
ment fail to be one which is completely suitable to a king, 
and superior to all the others, when the father of all does not 
scorn it? How can it fail to be right for us to hate and scorn 
those men called tyrants, who, although they have it in their 
power to emulate God, do not wish to do so? 

I always laugh, indeed, as I think of qne of the kings of old 
times, who set great store by possessing a certain divine power 
and a superior nature, and compelled men to erect temples to 
himself, as to a god, and statues, but by no means chose to love 
men as God does. And yet men give those things to God, and 
God gives this to men. The man who pursues the honors due 
him does not imitate God, but the man who pursues virtue 
does; nor is the man who is deemed worthy of those honors an 
imitator of God, but the man who, being worthy of them, 
shares them with others. Therefore the man who is not worthy 
of it uses force to obtain such honor, but the man who is 
worthy of it does not wish it. This is so in the first case because 
the man is impious in this matter, and in the second case because 
the man here recognizes the beings who are superior to him. 
Thus it is natural that the emperor who is a lover of mankind 
is dear to God-indeed men who love the same things are dear 
to each other-for such an emperor alone knows precisely that 
God must foster with all his power the man who models his 
mind on his own. This is what it is to admire him, this is the 
great song of praise, this is the true gift of honor, this is a fitting 
dedication to a king, namely to set up, not bronze or silver or 
gold, but one's own soul made into an image of God. The 
philosopher wishes this, but, lacking power, he seems much of 

II O(;T(I)C o~v Ol'ala" Tf \'rrf(lOVmOV xai l'rrFgbt.va~lOv (h'ya~tlv xal \'ITfgUYUitov (lya­
,'hlnrru IT(,IOCTTlih]GlV 11 OlllvOlU Tfl rruvT(t)v rrllyfl. oxvol1cra (;~W)~ xut TaiiTu f\"/,U-

1301.~tfvl] T~V XOIV(I)VlaV nov OYO~tUT(o)v. Could this be a reference to the dis­
pUled terminology involved in the Arian controversy? 

59 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

the time to limp [1 oJ as he tries to imitate the form. The man 
who, more than the rest of mortals, is able to accomplish good 
and chooses to do so, is a pure and complete image of God 12 

and is the same thing on earth as he is in heaven, governing, as it 
were, an allotment of the whole realm, and striving to imitate 
in part the ruler of the whole.13 Then the good master, pleased 
with this service, promotes him in the realm and assigns him 
a greater share, which he takes away from those less worthy. 

Our discourse, having found a most lovely picture of a 
surpassing example, is eager to linger over the spectacle. Let 
us, however, bring it down, even though it is unwilling, from 
divine to human topics, gently consoling it and showing that 
it will not in this fashion be at variance with itself but that 
it will achieve a service which, though it is less impressive, will 
be the more honorable. In general, then, we must consider how 
no one, whether he be a ruler or a workman, can achieve a fair 
accomplishment, in performing his labor, if he hates it anti is 
vexed by it. A groom who does not love horses cannot care 
for them nor can a herdsman who is not accustomed to cattle 
care for his herd. A flock which the shepherd dislikes will be 
an easy prey for wolves, and goats will come to misfortune at 
the hands of a man who hates them. Likewise whoever pastures 
human flocks must feel love for this kind of creature.14 He 
should care for it with pleasure, loving it like a child, not scorn­
ing it as though it were hostile, like an evil shepherd who 
knows only how to do a great deal of milking and to fill the 
pails with milk, cutting off its nourishment from the flock 
under his care, taking no thought for good pasturage, or, if 
there be such at hand, taking it away from them, making him­
self coarse and fat, but making his cattle thin and withered. 

l~ i'.iyu/.!LU TOl' {tfoii. In the second sentence preceding this, Themistius uses the 
phrase FIX()"f( ilFOI' in speaking of the king's soul. See also Oration XI, 143 A. 
These phrases concerning the "image of God" are so common in pagan litera­
ture that they do not necessarily show that Themistius had in mind the Chris­
tian teaching (d. II Cor. iv:4). 

13This is the con(.'eption of imperial power which was also set forth by Eusebius 
of Caesarea in his Oration on the Thirtieth Anniversary of Constantine. Themis­
tius is evidently trying to show that the doctrine belongs to the pagans as well 
as to the Christians. 

14Compare the description of the Good Shepherd in the Gospel of John, 10. 

60 



T hemistius' First Oration 

Such a man, however, will enjoy his rich living for only a 
little while, for the herd will quickly perish, [11] and he him­
self will become a hireling instead of a herdsman, a porter, 
perhaps, or a charcoal-maker, painfully getting a bare living. 
The good herdsman, on the contrary, while he will derive much 
profit from his work, has to give many things in return for it, 
keeping off wild beasts and looking out for healthy grass. And 
of course the cattle give a rich return of affection to the herds­
man who loves them; dogs love their huntsman, horses love 
the master who is a friend of horses, and human flocks the 
king who is a lover of mankind. In no other way can any 
living thing, indeed, perceive love and be smitten by it, nor 
can a lover be loved in return, in any other fashion, save by 
really feeling affection for the man who treats it well, just as it 
really hates the man who wrongs it. If it is a happy and blessed 
thing to see people who are our friends, how much more 
fortunate is it for those whom we see to be our friends? Thus 
the man who makes it plainly manifest that he bears the title 
of kingship sees as many friends as he does men. His subjects 
do not fear him, but fear for him, and this man alone makes 
no false pretence to kingship. He leads men who wish to follow 
him, not men who are in terror of him, and his rule is voluntary 
and not forced. A proof of this is that men seek his rule 
voluntarily, as though they could not exist without it. No one 
seeks that which he will fear, but that which he will love. The 
man who is great through fear merely stands out above others 
who bow down, and is not really great, while he who rules 
through love of mankind stands up above men all of whom are 
upright and exalted. The former adds nothing to himself, to 
make up his greatness, but cuts it away from his subjects, 
while the latter, while making all men great, is nevertheless 
greater than all himself. Neither is that man a lofty creature 
who, if he does not cut down those around him, cannot rise 
above them, nor is that man really a king who possesses no 
free subject. How can such a man differ from the thoughtless 
rich man who, possessing many slaves, takes pride and boasts 

61 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

that he is better off [12] than all of his servants? The work 
of a true king, I believe, is not to humble the upright, but to 
raise those who have fallen, so that, so far as lies in his power, 
he may be more happy than happy men. The true tyrant does 
not wish to be more blessed than fortunate men, but more 
blessed than wretched men, just as, I believe, a jailer who 
possesses many prisoners, loves them for his own sake, and re­
joices because he is more fortunate than those who are in fetters. 
And it is for this reason, I am sure, that the Persian monarch 
is far from the title of king. He not only understands that all. 
his subjects are slaves and makes them such, but he even makes 
slaves of his relatives, of his brother and actually of his son, 
to whom he is to hand on his rule. The man is really absurd 
who, thinking that his brother is his slave, likewise thinks that 
he himself is free. 

There is no advantage in having one's crown upright, but 
one's character prostrate; in having a sceptre of gold, but a 
soul more worthless than lead; in clothing the body in light 
and varicolored garments, while exhibiting a soul that is bare 
of virtue; in shooting, to hit birds, but in counsel, to miss 
wisdom; or for a man to be trained to sit easily on a horse, 
but to fall more easily away from justice. The man who loves 
things that do not belong to him in any way, while he destroys 
more than he gains, is deceived; he is unjust in his desire, foolish 
in his purpose, and silly in his hope. We consider, indeed, that 
the happiness of such a man is more abominable than the offense 
of Oedipus, to whom, the legend is, his mother bore children 
who were also his brothers. How is it remarkable, in fact, for 
a man to degenerate from reason when he has degenerated from 
nature itself? [l3] How does it not follow that a man will 
resist the weapons of a king when he resists him in every detail 
in his way of life? In the same way it is impossible for a 
disciplined man to admire an unbridled one, for a gentle man 
to admire a harsh one, and for a civilized man to admire one 
who lives in a manner fitting for wild beats. There is surely 
nothing more inimical to virtue than evil, nor is there anything 
that hates and despises it more. Every bad man, I am sure, 

62 



T hell/il,tills' Pirst Oration 

looks upon a good man as a kind of manifest refutation, when 
shame is seen in a clearer light alongside the good. 

This then is what destroyed him [the Persian king], not 

Mesopotamia, but the emperor's virtue shining near him. l;. Nor 
does he understand-and this would be the sole benefit of the 
juxtaposition-how to turn over the rudder of his mind to the 
man, now near him, who understands how to steer it, and 
thus tie his skiff to the great vessel. This would be better, I am 
sure, than for a man sailing a fragile craft, without tillers or 
the rest of the gear, to keep up a fight against a great strong 
trireme which possesses many infantry and many rowers and 
marines, and a helmsman who has been brought up on rudders 
from his swaddling clothes. Such a man will conduct a sorry 
sea-battle, even though for a short time he may, through his 
lightness, escape being boarded. 

But we must recall our discourse and turn it back from 
the track upon which it began to set out. The king, then, 
who loves mankind stands in real awe of mankind, for he feels 
respect especially for those whom he especially loves. This is 
the reason why he will not easily do a man wrong. And in the 
same way such a king will especially value the praise that comes 
to him from men. For every lover, [14] indeed, the thing that 
is good above all others is to be praised by his darling. And the 
man who desires to be praised, wishes to be good, for it is thus 
that he can win love. How much more fitting, by the Graces! 
is it for the emperor to be called a lover of mankind than a 
lover of wine or a lover of pleasure or a lover of gold or a lover 
of silver. Most of them, though they rule men, give their real 
care to money; and while they desire to be rich, and suppose 
that they are, they are really poorer than men who are quite 
well-to-do. Often men sell their clothing, because of poverty, 
but some rulers sell their good name for money. If it is dis­
graceful for an athlete to concede the olive-crown in the 
Olympic games for pay, it is more disgraceful for an emperor 
to sell the crown of virtue for money. Every rule stands in 

15The reference is to Constant ius' victory over Sapor at Singara; see Dindorf's 
commentary, 499. 

63 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

need, as though they were its tools, of both honor and punish­
ment, the one to increase virtue, the other to check evil-doing. 
The guilty and inhuman tyrant, however, surpasses the faults 
themselves in his punishments of them, while he fails to pay 
honor to deeds well done. What gift do we know of, coming 
from him, that is so great as the punishment of removing a 
man's skin? The prizes awarded by our gentle emperor are 
more lofty even than his good works, while his punishments 
are more tolerable than the faults for which they are given. It is 
more in the real character of love of mankind to do good than 
to do evil. Philosophy understands better the reason for this; 
and he [the emperor] seems to be the ruler of rewards, not 
the ruler of punishment. It is for this reason that from the 
beginning of time the law has put honors in the hands of kings, 
but punishments in those of the public executioners, giving the 
whole task to the executioner, but to the king merely the 
issuing of the order, since the one thing is fitting and the other 
necessary. 

[15] It is not in the same fashion that the victorious 
general rewards the preeminent man and punishes the deserter, 
nor does the driver goad the rebellious horse in the same way 
that he praises and urges on the tractable one. The very ap­
pearance of the king is largely composed of honor, not of 
punishment. Of such character are the purple and the crown, 
so that in distributing honors, he shares those which he himself 
has acquired, while in awarding punishments he gives those 
things which he in no wise possesses. But just as a reward turns 
men toward good deeds, while punishment turns them away 
from wickedness, it is more natural for the ruler to accomplish 
good than evil. In the one case he merely removes men from 
evil, while in the other he shares the good with them. Nothing, 
indeed, so sharpens and helps to increase virtue as a firm hope 
in its rewards. There is in truth in us, as Plato says,t6 a cer­
tain creature that is not a child, but something like a noble 

1111 have not been able to find a passage in Plato corresponding to Themistius' 
ostensible quotation. Themistius may have been quoting from memory, and may 
have had several passages in mind; or he may have been alluding to Republic, 
549 E-550 C, changing the phraseology rather freely. 

64 



Themistius' First Oration 

youth, a zealous lover of preeminence, whom, as he often falls 
asleep over many things, the expectation of honor wakes and 
rouses up, planting in him an incentive toward virtue sharper 

than any gadfly. Moreover, it is perhaps more profitable, in any 
task, to take thought for worthy men then for the unworthy. 
Neither does the helmsman of a ship take equal care of both the 
sailor and the merchant passenger, nor does the physician of 
the body take the same care of the hair and of the eyes. 

If watchful care for good things is better than care for evil 
things, and if good men stand in need of reward, while evil 
men require punishment, it is better for the ruler to be more 
inclined toward the bestowal of honor than toward punish­
ment' since most punishments are not carried out for the sake 
of assisting wrong-doers-for they take away the soul instead 
of aiding it-but seem instead to be of advantage only to the 
rest of mankind. It is because of this, 0 most wise ruler, that 
you have removed death from the list of punishments, thinking 
it a ridiculous remedy which does not aid the sick [16] but is 
thought to be of advantage to the healthy. Or is this the wis­
dom of this fine remedy, that it does not cure those to whom 
it is applied, but is of value only to those to whom it is not 
applied? To my way of thinking, every cure should be of more 
value to the man who receives it than to others. It will be of 
value not only by destroying, but by improving. The highly 
skilled physician is not the one who cuts off the ailing leg, but 
the one who attempts to cure and restore it. 

Shall I tell you the reason for this opinion? The law of 
former times, attempting, I believe, to make itself redoubtable, 
threatened the sword in most cases, and proclaimed the penalty 
of the same death for transgressions which are sometimes of un­
equal gravity. The reason was that law cannot maintain itself 
if it sets out to make subtle distinctions concerning transgres­
sions. The dissimilarities of human affairs, being beyond any 
distinction, lead into infinity any man who attempts to follow 
them. Hence, I believe, it seemed best to make one rough decla­
ration concerning all crimes and for all time, so that it might be 

65 



Greek and Byzantine Studies 

possible to be in a sound position with respect to things which 
had not yet appeared. This alone was left in the power of the 
lawgiver. And for this reason the law, like a discontented and 
self-willed man, usually gave the same answers to people who 
did not ask the same things. In this situation, with the law, 
under this constraint, making the same pronouncements con­
cerning unlike things, the severe punisher is able to grasp the 
law's words and to adhere tightly to its pronouncements. 
Therefore the law often destroys a man whom it would have 
set free if it had been able to make another statement, thus 
committing unlawful acts in a kind of lawful fashion. The ruler 
who loves humanity, however, pardons the letter of the law 
[17] for its inability to be exact, and himself adds to it that 
which it cannot accomplish, since, of course, he himself is the 
law and is above laws. To make such an addition is to take 
away the savageness of the law. Just as when a thoroughbred 
dog is irritated and yelping, its master calms and soothes its rage 
by gently laying hold of it, so the ruler who is a lover of 
humanity often softens the anger of the law, and if it chances 
to be attempting to execute a man, he persuades it to punish 
him by exile; or if it is trying to exile another man, the ruler 
finds it enough to confiscate some of his property. In the same 
way it is the role of clement justice, which is sympathetic 
toward those of like nature to itself, to determine, on the other 
hand, the general nature of crimes, and to make distinction 
between error, wrongdoing and misadventure!' Wrongdoing 
is the transgression of a man who desires to act in that way, and 
makes the choice of calculation. Error is a movement resulting 
from accident, when some desire or anger has suddenly leaped 
out before one, though the soul does not entirely give way to 
the movement. Misadvanture, finally, is wholly a kind of mis­
chance and mistake that attaches itself to some one from some 
source or other. For example, let us make our discourse clearer 
by concrete examples. It is possible to kill a man either deliber­
ately, or when seized by anger, or by mere chance, for example 

170n this distinction, see Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics, V, 8, 7; Rhetor., I, 13, 16. See 
also Themistius, Oration IX, 123 D. 

66 



T hClIlistim' First Oratio/l 

in athletic exercises or in hunting, just as in the tale of the 
Phrygian Adrastus, a fugitive who had taken refuge with the 
Lydian king, who, while hunting, aimed at an animal but 
missed it and instead struck with his spear the son of the man 
who had given him hospitality .. " 

It is the role of love of humanity to study these things 
carefully, and not to deal out recklessly punishment for what 
has happened, but to seek an occasion for moderation. If a man 
supposes that clemency is in itself a good thing, but that 
wickedness is increased by it, let him point out the evil and 
show how it has been nourished and has grown to such an 
extent, and point out what has created so great a condition of 
vice, [IS] or what sort of nurture it enjoyed, when first this 
tragic state of affairs became manifest, and fire and sword 
served to affright it. 

Our ruler has well demonstrated that wickedness is not 
nourished'" by his own love of mankind, but that it is withered 
by it, and that it rather gives way and yields place more gently 
when justice stretches out its hand to touch it. These things 
are not matters of hearsay, but are to be seen; and my discourse 
takes a strange and unnatural subject in speaking of them.~" 
It takes upon itself, indeed, to double the tremendous praise 
which up to this point it has been describing, instead of inter­
weaving another with it, as would be usual. But see how great 
will be the addition which I shall try to make to this praise. To 
have accomplished these things at his [the emperor's] time of 
life is worthy, not only of double, but of manifold praise. 
Could one say that a temperate old man and a temperate youth 
are equally to be admired? Or that a mild and gentle man of 
advanced age and such a man in his prime are within the same 
category? No wisdom is needed to understand this. But in the 
case of private citizens, a longer lapse of time shows that 
they are worthy of more. It is not as marvellous for virtue to 

!><The story is told at length by Herodotus, I, 35-45. 

l"On the phraseology, d. Plato, Republic. 550 B. 

;wI.e., it is not right or necessary to speak of them at all; 

67 



Greek and B'yzanti11e Studies 

follow upon age, as for time to alter or to run by, and especial­
ly is this true of that part of virtue which, while it is akin to 
age, is at variance with youth. That steadiness and calm and 
gentleness should occur in the age which before all others stirs 
up and disturbs the soul, I should not have supposed happened, 
not can I easily believe that it will happen. On the contrary, 
men of this age usually are quick of temper; they dart off and 
are swept away [19] by their passions like ships without 
ballast.''' The ruler, however, like a man who steers by means 
of his intelligence, compels the sea of youth to calm itself, and 
to him alone is that phrase "as gentle as a father":"~ fitting, but 
because of his virtue, not because of his age. 

Consider, by the god of friendship,"" how difficult it is, in 
the midst of so much good fortune, to preserve fairness. Most 
men are unable, through weakness, to support good fortune, 
which is like a burden; but it is more difficult at an age like 
this, at which men preserve decorum least of all, and oniy 
under com pulsion. 

But let us put a fitting crown to our discourse and offer it 
as a perfect gift to our ruler. The ruler who loves mankind, 
then, is he not also especially a lover of his friends? Indeed, 
though he thinks so much of mankind, he sets greater store by 
his friends, and even though he loves those who live under him, 
he will especially love those who live with him, and if he can 
bear least of all to harm his subjects, he can in no way give 
pain to his companions. He understands that wealth of neither 
gold nor silver nor of the prized stones is of such great profit 
to a ruler as the wealth of true friendship. For the man who 
must hear many things, see many things, and at the same time 
take thought for many things, his two ears and his two eyes 
and his one body, and the one soul which dwells in it, are 
very little indeed. But if he is rich in friends, he will see far 
and will hear things that are not near him, and he will know 

2lPlato, Theaetetus, 144 A. 

221/iad, XXIV, 770; Odyssey, II, 47, 234, etc. 

""Zeus Philios. 

68 



T hemistius' First Oration 

what is far away, like the seers, and he will be present at the 
same time in many places, like a god. Since he knows this, he 
clings to each of his friends as though to his own body and his 
own soul and with his friendship is alone exalted and at the 
same time secure. With tyrants, such a height is dangerous. 
When anyone thinks he is walking with them on equal terms, 
they thrust him away and cast him down [20] a steep cliff or 

into a deep pit. They raise men up, not that they may be ex­
alted, but that they may cast them down from a height. But 
many of those who fall lay hold of those who thrust them down 
and bear them down with themselves. Those, however, who 
touch our rufer's hand know that they have hold of a safe 
cable, 114 and that they will hold it to the end. This, from your 
comrade philosophy, is the true and honest and pure offering: 
not one which flows from the tip of the tongue while the soul 
within speaks the contrary, but such as dwells within and comes 
forth from the lips as well. From such things as cause a man to 
falsify his praises philosophy is free. It has no regard what­
ever for wealth and requires no reward. possessing its own 
source of honor within itself. 

Il~Plato, Laws, 893 B. 

69