Representation and Legitimation of Power of Valentinian and Valens according to Contemporary Panegyrics

古代晚期皇帝统治的正当性已经在许多不同的方面得到了检验。然而，瓦伦丁尼安皇帝（364—375）和瓦伦斯皇帝（364—378）所面临的特殊挑战却没有得到充分的考虑。与大多数其他统治者相比，这些皇帝在四个不同方面表现出独特性。一方面，这些奇点加剧了统治合法性的问题。另一方面，他们注意到皇帝自我表现的变化。这些皇帝建立了一个新的王朝，因此他们的统治面临着更高的合法性压力。此外，他们出身贫寒，没有paideia（在当时的意义上）可供支配。此外，他们作为基督教皇帝，在宗教政治的过渡阶段进行统治，这一阶段始于君士坦丁王朝，并因与朱利安的工作有关的分裂而更加突出。此外，他们对帝国进行了实用主义的分割，这与传统的帝国不可分割的信念相冲突。颂词构成了这种重新评价的基础，其中相当多的颂词留存了下来。赞美诗是由两个演说家写的，来自东方的塞米提奥斯和来自西方的西马库斯。因此，有可能在皇帝或公众之间划出分歧。通过这种方式，该项目能够展示瓦伦蒂尼安王朝在历史上独特的危机和过渡时期为罗马皇帝统治合法化的创新潜力。此外，它可以以一种示范性的方式重构颂词作为这一过程中的一个指标和因素的意义。由此，可以弥补古代晚期帝王形象历史研究的空白。

The legitimation of rule of the late antique emperors has already been examined in many different ways. However, the special challenges the emperors Valentinian (364--375) and Valens (364--378) had to face have not been sufficiently taken into account. Compared to most of the other rulers, these emperors reveal singularities in four different respects. On one hand, these singularities sharpen the problem of the legitimation of rule. On the other hand they hark a change in the emperors' self-representation. These emperors formed a new dynasty and therefore their rule was under a higher pressure of legitimacy. Further, they were of mean birth and did not have paideia (in the sense of that time) at their disposal. In addition, they ruled as Christian emperors in a transitional phase of religious politics, which had begun with the Constantinian dynasty and had been accentuated by the break connected with the workings of Julian. Moreover, they performed a pragmatic division of the empire, which conflicted with the traditional belief of the indivisibility of the empire.Panegyrics form the basis of this reevaluation, of which a comparatively large number survive. The panegyrics were written by two orators, Themistios from the east and Symmachus from the west. Therefore, it is possible to carve out differences between the emperors or the publica. In this way, the project is able to show the Valentinian dynasty's potential for innovation for the legitimation of the rule of Roman emperors in a historically unique time of crisis and transition. Furthermore, it can in an exemplary way reconstruct the meaning of panegyrics as an indicator and factor in such processes. Hence, a gap in the historical research of the representation of late antique emperors can be closed.