Aelius Aristides’ eulogy On Rome (Oration 26), delivered in ad 144 at the imperial court, is one of the most famous orations in his corpus, and one of the great texts illustrating Greek attitudes towards Rome during the second century ad. It is often read as a political analysis of Rome and flattery of Roman rule, but recently S. Swain has argued that, when read in conjunction with other speeches, one does not notice any ‘unequivocal sign of deep loyalty’. Scholars adopting this line of interpretation usually take a rather dim view of attempts to detect philosophical ideas in the speech. A major argument in the latter direction was put forward by J. H. Oliver, who argued in 1953 that Aristides was strongly influenced by Plato and that he portrayed the Romans as equivalent to the Platonic demiurge. He considered On Rome to be a cosmological hymn, picturing it as an image of the eternal cosmos. Others have pursued the same line, while at the same time toning down what is seen as Oliver's one-sided interpretation. In my opinion, these scholars are correct in detecting the presence of cosmological ideas in On Rome and linking these to opinions about the ideal state, although I am less convinced that it is correct to do so by making an inventory of Platonic references and ideas. I wish rather to argue that one important theme of this oration is Aristides’ desire to depict Rome as the empire that reproduces natural order on earth. This does not mean that it is wrong to analyse the speech from a historical or a literary point of view (like all great examples of Second Sophistic rhetoric, it is rich in themes and ideas), but Aristides’ implicit comparison of Rome to the perfect, ideal empire as found in the heavens adds an important dimension to our understanding of the text.

The theme of the oration is empire and government; Aristides basically argues that Rome is the best empire ever. This theme is developed in the two halves of the oration. After the proem (1–5) and a brief outline of Rome's geography (6–13), the first half of the speech compares Rome favourably with the Persians, Alexander's empire, Sparta, Athens and Thebes (14–57), the bulk of which is taken up by the comparison with Persia (15–39). The second half praises Rome's policy, both civil and military (58–91), and ends with a eulogy of Rome's mixed constitution. The speech concludes by exalting the peace that resulted from Rome's rule (92–109). Even in the second part numerous comparisons are used to exalt Rome above the states discussed in the first half of the oration. As noticed by L. Pernot, the set of comparisons that make up the first part of the oration form the ‘fil directeur’ of the entire oration. Understanding the oration thus presupposes grasping the meaning of the comparisons. They are usually understood as they present themselves, namely as historical comparisons, and Aristides consequently as indebted to earlier historical reflection on Rome's rise, in particular Polybius and his analysis of Rome's imperialism. Aristides’ speech can thus be seen as an extensive rehearsal of the rhetorical topos of translatio imperii, namely that the rule of the world transferred from Persia to Alexander and then to Rome. Although earlier views on Rome's history surely provide significant background, this explanation remains unsatisfactory: for reflecting a historical approach the comparisons are surprisingly poor in specific historical detail and rich in gross distortions. The usual exaggeration (auxēsis) of a panegyric surely plays a role but cannot explain everything: especially the very negative image of the Persian Empire is hard to match in any historical account that Aristides’ contemporaries would have known. Whereas history provides the setting for the oration, Aristides clearly oversteps the boundaries of what is historically plausible. This suggests that more is going on. It may therefore be worth while to ask what the comparisons would mean in the mind of the contemporary audience of Aristides. This entails substituting the diachronic perspective of traditional scholarship on the oration On Rome with a synchronic one: rather than asking which rhetorical or historical models Aristides is following, I wish to ask how the comparisons would resonate among the listeners and readers of the oration.