@phdthesis{01GTMP5YS9BKZENWHJQGAYTH7D,
  abstract     = {{The first part of this PhD shows that the ancient recommendation letter should be seen against the background of broader epistolary practice. Therefore it is meaningful to first have a closer look at this practice, before embarking on a discussion of the recommendation letter. The justification lies in the fact that the ancient letter should be considered as a multifaceted cultural phenomenon characterised by long-standing habits and norms.

The first chapter takes into account different angles from which a letter can be studied. It views the letter as a way of connecting people and transmitting information, often over a large distance. Letters are regularly regarded as a substitute for the letter writer’s presence. Also, an epistolographer can reach people who are not the primary reader of the document. Further, a letter is shaped by epistolary theory, and can be included in a letter collection, which aim is very often at variance with the original letter.

In the second chapter the focus is narrowed down to recommendation letters. After a first section in which the main features, functions and uses of a recommendation letter are analysed, the discussion turns to actual recommendation letters of Latin and Greek epistolographers (including fictional letters and papyrus letters). Classified by author, this wide analysis seeks to reveal the typical features of a recommendation letter and understand to what extent friendship and reciprocal services play a role in these letters. Where applicable, special attention is paid to recommendation letters written for the same recommendee to different addressees. This comparison of epistolographers shows that the differences are mainly situated in the area of the number of addressees, extension and depth of network, the arguments presented and the use of friendship in recommendation letters. A third section investigates the extent to which the letter writer is able to exert influence by means of his recommendation letters. Finally, an answer is given to the question of whether the placement of recommendation letters in a letter collection would give additional significance to this collection. Although this chapter includes authors from different historical and geographical contexts, epistolographers from the fourth century AD, as Libanius’ contemporaries, are analysed in more depth.

A third chapter demonstrates that the activity of recommending an individual cannot be limited to the recommendation letter itself. Examples from various epistolographers show that such a process comprises several stages, which, moreover, extends over a longer period.

The second part of this thesis almost exclusively looks into the recommendation letters of Libanius, in contrast to the first part, which is primarily devoted to the epistolary practice and recommendation letters of other epistolographers. The fourth chapter, a short introduction to Libanius’ recommendation letters, explores this kind of letter from the perspective of a petitioner, Libanius himself or an addressee, by analysing the possible reactions that such a letter might elicit in them. Likewise, it pays attention to the ideas of friendship and reciprocal favours, as such notions often constitute the basis of Libanius’ support for his petitioners. This chapter concludes by noting that the arrangement of individual (recommendation) letters in the collection points to a high degree of organisation.

The subsequent chapter links Libanius’ recommendation letters to a significantly larger recommendation process. Such a process permits to grasp the status, power, and influence, not only of the addressee, but also of the letter writer. This chapter also demonstrates the parallels with similar processes visible in other letter writers.

The final chapter constitutes the main focus of my research. In this chapter, representing half of my thesis, I analyse 62 letter sets written to several letter recipients for the same recommendee. Half of the discussed letter sets are situated in a single quinquennium of Libanius’ epistolary activity (360–365). Each of the sets comprises between two and twelve letters. Most letter sets probably cover a relatively short time frame (one year), although some groups containing a large number of letters typically extends over a longer period. In a majority of cases the purpose of the letter is more than a mere introduction. The letters ask for an appointment or intervene in judicial proceedings. Other documents concern an inheritance or estate issue, or aim at obtaining membership of the senate in Constantinople. The letters are mainly sent to officials belonging to the imperial administration and other high-level contacts in Eastern provinces. 

The analysis of the 62 letter sets mainly deals with the kind of arguments adduced by Libanius, the influence that the letter writer, the addressee or an opponent can deploy, the travel route of a letter carrier, the way of approaching an addressee, the kind of ties that links an addressee or petitioner to Libanius and Antioch, the extension of Libanius’ network, and the rhetorical devices. Not all research questions can equally be applied to every single letter set, since much depends on the nature of the case that is discussed. On numerous occasions I challenge, correct or complement previous research.
An assessment from the perspective of the recommendee reveals a distinction between an introduction for a new governor, a judicial intervention and a recommendation for a student to a teacher within the mass of letters. Numerous letters demonstrate that Libanius has different strategies as to how he would approach an addressee. Not only does he turn to a key office holder and a member of staff or another individual living in the same city, but he also writes a subsequent letter to the same addressee or asks others to intervene on his behalf. In the interactions between Libanius and his addressee, much revolves around persuasion, influence, and information transmitted to an addressee. When dealing with an addressee, Libanius adduces diverse arguments to stir his addressee to action. It is, however, possible to subsume these arguments into some broad categories: rhetorical qualities, administrative or governing competences, prominent role and influence, ensuing honour and prestige, ascendancy over an addressee. Moreover, Themistius’ self-image as a philosopher is skilfully manipulated. The analysis makes clear that Libanius interacts less with his recommendees than with letter recipients. Libanius’ epistolary practice also shows that he has several strategies to circumvent the obstacle posed by the fact that his influence is not identical in every single case. A few letters demonstrate that Libanius refrains from giving too much information in a letter. Finally, the analysis of the letters according to the precepts of ancient rhetorical theory undoubtedly shows that rhetoric pervades almost every recommendation letter. More particularly, letters seem to have been influenced by epideictic rhetoric. The inventio of arguments, and specifically those belonging to special topics, clearly points to such influence. In general, the style level can be considered fairly high, since rhetorical figures are present in almost every letter.}},
  author       = {{Marien, Bruno}},
  keywords     = {{Late antiquity,epistolography,Libanius,recommendation letter}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{XII, 721}},
  publisher    = {{KU Leuven. Faculty of Arts ; Ghent University. Faculty of Arts and Philosophy}},
  school       = {{Ghent University}},
  title        = {{Recommendation letters of Libanius : comparison with the wider ancient epistolary practice and means of promoting interests of his multiple petitioners}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}