Date post: | 20-Feb-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ben-rogaczewski |
View: | 8 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Ben Rogaczewski
Few historical figures have captured the focus and controversial, as that of
the Roman emperor Julian, also known to history as “Julian the Apostate”. Only
ruling for about a year and a half before his tragic death in battle against the
Persians, Julian strangely fascinates everyone, from the historical scholar to the
everyday reader. Why is it that an emperor who ruled for a mere year and half, is so
fascinating to all?
Building legends, Christians after Julian’s death saw Julian as a symbol of evil,
creating legends of an epitome of Diocletian, mimicry of the Great Persecution of the
third century. In the Age of Enlightenment, Julian was exemplified as the hero of
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a hero who stood up to the ancient
Church. Even today, these images or visions of Julian create the argument of “who
was Julian the Apostate?”
Immortalized to the modern world through Gore Vidal’s Julian as man of
reason against in unreasonable Christianity is a pleasant vision to the modern day
atheist, scoffing at the predecessor of a majority religion, but is historically unlikely.
However, this has also caused several historians of Late Antiquity to argue their
own image of Julian, based upon the sources related to him, be it his own letters or
prose, or critical memoires. These different visions of Julian are the topic of this
examination, culminated from the set standard of English-speaking studies of Julian
the Apostate. The unfortunate truth is that as a young scholar, I lack the knowledge
of French and German, and therefore cannot describe works such J. Bidez’s study of
the Emperor Julian, a work which scholars such as Polymnia Athanassiadi refer to as
the best portrayal of Julian the Apostate to date. However, the availability in modern
2
times for scholarly works of Julian the Apostate in English, allow a younger
generation of scholars to view Julian’s life. This is much in the same way as Peter
Brown had taken European studies of Late Antiquity, and brought the English-
speaking scholars into the arena, so to speak.
As for the vision of Julian, the modern day scholars vary on the personage of
Julian the Apostate, almost as much as ancient biographers varied on his personage.
Ammianus Marcellinus knew Julian personally, as he was a soldier under Julian in
Gaul and Persia, and his view of Julian is one of much praise, but also some
criticisms, especially with Julian’s edict against Christian teachers. On the other
hand, other pagan biographers of Julian, such as Zosimus writing in the 6th century
AD, have nothing but praise for their pagan hero. The same sentiment is said of
modern biographers. However, more criticism is given to Julian’s religious aspects,
than any other part of his life. From these studies, the image of Julian as a
“puritanical pagan”, one who frightened pagans, as well Christians, who did not
want their lives changed too much, by religious zeal1, is given alongside another
scholar’s view that Julian’s conversion to paganism was similar to many in the time
of Late Antiquity who were Christians on the outside, but pagans within.2 The
contradiction of these two views is what Julian historians call the standard of study,
found within the writings of Bowersock and Browning. This is of course a deviation
from biographers before this standard, such as Giuseppe Ricciotti.
1 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978). Pgs. 79-80.2 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1978). P. 109.
3
Only several years after Bowersock and Browning had set the standard for
English-speaking studies of Julian, Polymnia Athanassiadi wrote her biography of
Julian titled Julian and Hellenism. About a decade after her first publishing of the
book, she reprinted the book under the new title Julian: An Intellectual Biography.
Referring to her book as a counterpart to Bowersock’s biography, Athanassiadi
devoted several years of study to look at Julian’s intellectual and emotional life.
Accidently, she had created a new perspective on the study of Julian, the focus on
the intellectual. Rather than focus upon what others say about Julian, she turned her
focus on Julian’s written works. Using Julian’s works, Athanassiadi felt she could
give a proper portrayal of the “real” Julian, a goal that Bowersock had for his own
work.
A couple of years after Athanassiadi reprinted her intellectual biography of
Julian; Rowland Smith took the intellectual biography a step further. Whereas
Athanassiadi focused on Julian’s written works and other primary sources such as
Libanius’ orations and Ammianus’ memoire, Smith focused his attention mainly
upon Julian’s invectives against the Cynics and Christians, along with his prose.
Rowland Smith’s book Julian’s Gods, focuses on Julian as learned man, with a sense
of humor, a view he finds conflicting with Bowersock’s “puritanical pagan”.3
As for Julian’s life, all of the modern, as well as ancient, scholars give a
general narrative. Julian was born in Constantinople during the reign of Constantine,
and at the six, became an orphan via the murder of his father and several other
3 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (New York, New York: Routledge, 1995). P. 220.
4
males of his family. Constantine’s son, Constantius, according to the scholars, had a
hand in murders, whether by order or lack of control of the soldiers. Many of the
scholars point to the former. Constantius sent Julian away from Constantinople, to
Cappadocia, Nicomedia and Athens, all for his own education. It was during this time
that Julian learned from Neo-Platonists, as well as Christians.
When Constantius began to have trouble controlling the western half of the
empire, he established Julian as Caesar of Gaul. While in Gaul, Julian had many
military successes, such as the Battle of Strasbourg. However, when Constantius
needed part of Julian’s troops for his Persian expedition, Julian’s troops rose up and
declared Julian the emperor of Rome. Julian accepted the acclamation and began to
march towards Constantinople. On the way, Julian received a message stating that
Constantius had died. Julian was now the sole ruler of the empire.
While emperor, Julian declared religious toleration and brought back all
Athanasian bishops and clergy from exile, which was imposed by Constantius. He
also declared that all Christian teachers were no longer allowed to teach the pagan
classics. After putting his edicts into place, he set his gaze on Persia. He prepared his
soldiers for Persia, and marched towards Antioch in Syria.
While in Antioch, he met the predominately Christian city with a poor mood.
Displeasure had filled him about the way paganism was poorly treated in Antioch.
The Christian Antiochenes were also displeased by Julian’s presence, and mocked
his appearance, especially his philosopher’s beard. This prompted Julian to write his
work titled Misopogon, or “Beard Hater”. With that, Julian left Antioch with his
troops and made his way to Persia.
5
Julian died while in battle against the Persians in 363. Upon his death,
soldiers searched for the new emperor amongst the ranks, and Jovian was selected.
This is generally the accepted narrative of Julian’s life. However, each of these
modern day authors give a different view of Julian, based upon the sources they use.
I intend to present each of these author’s biographies first based upon the focus of
the biography and the image of Julian the biography portrays. Then I will look at the
criticism of sources used.
The earliest modern work of Julian within this study is Julian the Apostate by
Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti. Ricciotti’s main purpose for his book is to use all the
reliable sources to create a non-partisan view of Julian. This is also a continuation of
Riccioti’s first book The Age of Martyrs, which is concerned with Diocletian’s
persecutions.4 For the most part, Ricciotti does not view Julian as a non-partisan
historian, but rather focuses on Julian’s relationship with Christianity. Riccioti even
goes so far as to state that
This hatred for the all-powerful Constantius was bound to extend to every facet of his being, beginning with his adherence to Christianity. Julian was driven to hate this religion not by any philosophical or abstract reasons but by the fact that his murderous cousin was a Christian.5
By this statement, Ricciotti is saying that no other reason, such as Neo-
Platonism or the survival of paganism, caused Julian to hate Christianity than his
4 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. xi.5 Ibid. p. 42.
6
recognition that Constantius, who was a Christian, murdered his family. By that
standard of association, Christianity killed his family. I find this statement to be
rather bold, and improbable for a couple of reasons. It is possible that the murder of
Julian’s family affected Julian; more than possible even. However, Julian was a
learned man, taught by Christians as well as pagans. If he hated Christianity so
much, then why did he invite Christians to be a part of imperial counsel? The view
that Julian would hate a religion based solely on the murder of his family portrays
an irrational Julian. However, the writings of Julian do not show an irrational
character, nor does Ammianus or Libanius describe him as such. Therefore, this
statement is simply polemical to show Julian as irrational and highly anti-Christian
from an early age.
Another view that Riccioti takes with Julian’s reign is the presence of a
persecution of Christians. None of the other modern works of Julian’s life state
anything related to a persecution of Christians. Ricciotti states
There was no official persecution, but there certainly were Christians who suffered abuse and violence from the hands of pagans acting with the tacit approval of the authorities…In a word, there was a disguised persecution guided by the hand of power.6
From this statement, it can be understood that there was religious violence
taking place, but Ricciotti does not bring up the fact that Christians provoked the
violence. Now this does not excuse the religious violence in anyway, but the
statement above makes it seem that Christians were being persecuted because they
6 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 182.
7
were Christians. Ricciotti states in the next paragraph about the murder of George of
Cappadocia, in which George of Cappadocia was murdered by a group of pagans.
However, Ricciotti makes the connection that both Christians and pagans hated
George7, and so there is the possibility that Christians were involved with the
lynching of George of Cappadocia.
The stress of the possibility that Julian’s reign created a “persecution” of
Christians further proves the polemic against Julian. Ricciotti uses a series of
martyrs, recorded by Christian historians, to try to prove that a persecution took
place.8 However, I do not understand why Ricciotti would do this. Is he trying to
show that Julian was even more anti-Christian than was previously thought? I feel
that this is not necessary to the study of Julian since it was not official, but also
because it does not further our study of Julian.
The final criticism I have of Ricciotti is the portrayal of Julian as a
superstitious mystic. While Julian is marching towards Constantinople, Ricciotti
states
Two typical aspects of Julian’s character appear in this context: fervent mysticism and cold calculation, ample play for omens and sacrificial offerings but exact attention also to the realities amidst which one had to work.9
Ricciotti throughout the book labels Julian’s superstitious nature as being
almost exclusive. Ricciotti does not bring up the fact that many others in Late
Antiquity were highly superstitious, searching for omens to justify their actions.
7 Ibid. p. 182.8 Ibid. p. 184.9 Ibid. p. 161.
8
Browning brings up this idea in his biography, including aspects of Constantine’s
superstitious apotropaic use of the cross and the devotion to Sol Invictus.10 Perhaps
Ricciotti did not wish to compare Christianity’s Constantine the Great with Julian the
Apostate. Both were highly superstitious, but to scold these two would require the
scolding of the empire.
A final word on Ricciotti’s biography on Julian leaves us with a couple things
to say. Overall, this biography is not non-partisan. It portrays Julian as the Christian
legends portray Julian: an irrational, superstitious persecutor of Christians. It does
not add much to the study of Julian in this respect. Where it could have added
aspects to make it non-partisan, it did not. The other modern authors of Julian’s
biographies do not mention any criticism for Ricciotti’s book, and yet many of the
authors list Ricciotti’s book as a source.
With Robert Browning’s book, The Emperor Julian, a more balanced view of
Julian is given, than that of Riccioti’s portrayal. However, this is not surprising based
upon Browning’s preface. Browning states, the purpose of his book is to show Julian
as
A man of his time, sharing alike its superstition and its rationalism, its pragmatism and its concern for dogma.11
More or less, Browning wishes to show Julian not as Ricciotti did, as that of
an exclusive outsider, but rather as a rational man of Late Antiquity. In my opinion,
10 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1978). P. 3.11 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1978). P. xi.
9
Browning accomplishes this goal very well in the book. Placing Julian in Late
Antiquity, an age essentially of religious ambivalence, allows Browning the ability to
explain Julian’s “conversion” from Christianity to paganism as similar to that of
other pagans wearing the Christian mask. When Browning confronts Julian’s
religious feelings between Christianity and paganism, he states
He [Julian] had, like many others in the fourth century, been living a kind of double life, outwardly a member of the Christian Church, privately taking part in the rites of the syncretistic pagan mystery religions of late antiquity.
Browning’s statement shows an excellent example of the religious
ambivalence of the times. However, I have one slight issue with this statement.
Explaining Julian’s “conversion” to paganism as being a similar trend amongst other
Christian converted pagans, lessens the strength of his “conversion” to paganism.
Julian himself states that until his twentieth year, he walked in darkness, but thanks
to the gods, he walked in the lighted path for twelve years.12 His own statement of
“coming into the light from darkness” gives the reader the sense that his conversion
was a very profound moment in his life. So much so, that he professed it to the
Alexandrians in a letter he sent them.
In his epilogue, Browning adds something different from many of the other
biographies such as Ricciotti’s and Bowersock’s. In the epilogue, Browning gives a
lengthy chronology of Julian in works such as plays and novels. Not surprisingly,
12 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 48.
10
most of the plays are tragedies. One interesting connection is St. Augustine’s
coverage of Julian. St. Augustine states
He had unusual talents, which were lead astray through his ambition for power by a sacrilegious and detestable inquisitiveness.13
As a commentary to this statement, Browning says
Inquisitiveness and ambition for power are human errors that accompany excellence. Augustine’s Julian is not diabolical.14
True to his point, Browning does accomplish his goal of portraying Julian as a
man of his time. However, G. W. Bowersock, who wrote his biography of Julian in
response to Browning’s biography, has this to say about Browning’s Julian
It should perhaps be said here that the present interpretation of Julian and his career differs from Browning’s in attending explicitly to the ancient testimony and in sketching a portrait quite unlike his.15
With this criticism in mind, we must now look at how Bowersock views
Julian.
Bowersock’s Julian the Apostate, as the title shows, bears no deviation from
the concept that Julian was an apostate of the Christian faith. It is no surprise then
that Bowersock’s book is a response to Browning’s The Emperor Julian, whose title
stresses that Julian is not “the” Apostate, but rather one of many apostates at the
13 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1978). P. 226.14 Ibid. p. 226.15 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 1.
11
time. However, the focus of Bowersock’s book is to utilize literary sources
contemporaneous to Julian, along with Julian’s edicts of the Theodosian Code,
inscriptions, and numismatics. By utilizing all of these sources, Bowersock’s goal is
to show what he considers the “historical” Julian. Along with this, Bowersock states
that he will not stress much upon Julian’s Neo-Platonism, since it is only essential to
Julian’s emotional life.16 The concise nature of Bowersock’s book, and his criticism of
sources, allowed his biography of Julian’s life to be placed as a the standard of the
English speaking study of the emperor Julian. More on his criticism of sources will
be given later, but for now, I would like to divulge into Bowersock’s portrayal of the
emperor Julian.
In the beginning of Julian the Apostate, Bowersock gives an essay on Julian’s
personality. In this essay, Bowersock states that Julian was a simple ascetic,
sleeplessly lying on straw, eating a diet that was anything but filling.17 Noting
Julian’s abstinence of sex, Bowersock also makes the connection that Julian was
worried that, like Marcus Aurelius, he too would bear a degenerate child.18 This was
the reason he did not remarry, according to Libanius.
Along with Julian’s asceticism, Bowersock states that Julian felt a deep
connection with the divine. Julian was susceptible to religious experiences and
mysticism, which was not surprising due to the popularity of the Neo-Platonist
teachers.19 Julian believed that he received divinely inspired dreams and visions,
16 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978). P. xi.17 Ibid. p. 14.18 Ibid. p. 15.19 Ibid. p. 16.
12
which Bowersock states was more typical of ancient men in his psychic
disposition.20
Bowersock comments later on Julian’s irrational behavior, specifically with
religious matters. The argument seems similar to that of Ricciotti, who stated that
Julian was naturally so impetuous that he did not always succeed in controlling his feelings. Second, he was spiteful, always anxious to get the last word in an argument, and not above using contempt and sarcasm to humiliate his adversaries. Such traits are found in his works…Misopogon, Against the Galileans, Against the Ignorant Cynics, and Against the Cynic Heraclius.21
Bowersock states that the Misopogon sprang from these irrational emotions,
and his satire, the Caesars, was filled with pent up anger towards Constantine, along
with an intolerance of Christians and Julian’s aversion to sex.22 Bowersock even
states that due to Julian’s complex nervous temperament, superstitious and
calculation, along with his easily wounded pride, Julian, not surprisingly had few
friends.23 In his concluding notations of Julian’s personality, Bowersock states that
Julian had no mortal source of inspiration and motivation, and that there could be
no ties to humanity.24
In short, Bowersock’s Julian is an irrational, religious fanatic, a puritanical
pagan, and a self-isolated ascetic. In lighter terms, Julian is not personable, nor does
20 Ibid. p. 17.21 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 148.22 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 18.23 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 19.24 Ibid. p. 20.
13
he seem to be the kind of person one would enjoy the company of. The strange
feeling I have about this specific portrayal of Julian not so much the description, but
the author of said description. Bowersock claimed that one of his goals was to not
focus on Julian’s emotional life, and yet most of these descriptions of Julian’s
personality stem from an emotional outlook. Julian’s irrational behavior and self-
isolation seem to come from a psychological assessment by Bowersock. Along with
this, Bowersock is not surprised that Julian had few friends, considering his
emotional irrationality and superstitious nature. However, if this was the case, and
Julian was not a personable character, why then would people like Eusebia defend
him from the wrath of Constantius?
Bowersock stresses the image of Julian as a “puritanical pagan” above many
of the other images. This is evident within his chapter titled “Puritanical Pagan”, in
which Bowersock states that pagans, as well as Christians, had grown accustomed to
enjoying pleasures of life, such as the theatre and chariot-races.25 According to
Bowersock, it would not be surprising that everyone was worried about a drastic
change in lifestyle due to Julian’s ascetic nature. Julian stressed that his pagans had
to adhere to certain rules, similar to that of Julian’s ascetic lifestyle. This caused
many pagans to fear that they too would be forced to live as the ascetic pagan priest
lived. 26 However, I find some fault with this statement. To me, Julian was not
stressing his own lifestyle on the people. He was stressing a set of rules, similar to
the idea of rules for Christian priests. I must admit that there are notions in the
rules, such as the avoidance of Lampoons, which adhere to the idea of “Puritanism”.
25 Ibid. p. 80.26 Ibid. p. 80.
14
However, as Rowland Smith points out, Julian was not without humor. In fact,
according to Smith, Julian most likely felt that there was a time and place for humor,
and his imposition of strict rules upon pagan priests is a restricted group.27 I agree
with Smith. The description of the different Caesars within his satires shows a sense
of humor, similar to that of Aristophanes’ mocking of Socrates. Not to mention the
work was composed for the feast of the Saturnalia, a time of revelry and comical
mischief. Julian, being a pagan, must have known these traditions, and so composed
his satire.
Overall, I find that Bowersock’s criticism of sources, along with his use of
numismatics to be the best features of his biography for Julian. However, I do not
agree with his portrayal of Julian, as a “puritanical pagan”. Although Bowersock’s
evidence loosely gives him the image to fit his goals, I find the “intellectual
biographies” to show a more “historical” Julian.
With Polymnia Athanassiadi’s reprint Julian: An Intellectual Biography, a new
approach is taken for the life of Julian. Athanassiadi’s focus is to study the inner life
of Julian, based around his philosophy and religion. She refers to her work as a
counterpart to Bowersock’s Julianic biography.28 One of the things Athanassiadi
argues within her book is that Julian was not consciously a Christian.29 This would
mean that Julian was not an “apostate”, since he could not turn away from
Christianity if he was not a Christian to begin with consciously.
27 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (New York, New York: Routledge, 1995). P. 14.28 Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual Biography (New York, New York: Routledge, 1992). P. x.29 Ibid. p. xii.
15
The beginning of her book focuses on the concept of Hellenism. Throughout
her book, Athanassiadi explains how Neo-Platonism before and during the reign of
Julian was transformed into the religion Julian created, Hellenism. This was why
Julian imposed the edict against Christian teachers. It was a precaution to protect
Hellenism. Athanassiadi goes on in her chapters to stress that Julian created a new
sense of paideia, or Hellenistic culture. Julian had figured out a way to combine
Romanitas and Hellenism, to create a Greco-Roman religion.
Overall, Athanassiadi focuses much on what Julian did, rather than who
Julian was. Perhaps she wishes take glimpse of Julian based upon these actions. She
seems to praise Julian as a kind of religious genius in the ability to create
“Hellenism” as a religion on par with Christianity. The view that Athanassiadi takes
is that Julian combined the Mithraic religion with the doctrine of Iamblichan Neo-
Platonism, to create a pagan monotheism. Athanassiadi’s proof of this comes from
Julian’s Hymn to King Helios. In this hymn, Julian connects Mithraism and Plato to
create Helios-Mithra, the culmination of Julian’s “Hellenism”.30 However, she does
place a lot of emphasis on Julian’s initiation into the cult of Mithras, a criticism he
states herself.31She states that this may be a problem, and she is right. Although I
find it very probable that Julian would use the god Mithras, much as Aurelian had
done with his Sol Invictus, as a unifying god for the religion of Hellenism, Julian is not
a monotheist himself. He does praise Helios-Mithras above other gods, but he still
praises other gods such as Cybele Magna Mater. With this is mind; Julian is not so
30 Ibid. p. 160.31 Ibid. p. xiv.
16
much a “monotheist” as he is a “henotheist” since he praises one god, but
acknowledges other gods as well.
The fascinating aspect of Athanassiadi’s book is her connection with Julian to
the Byzantine. She goes out of her way to make a connection that I do not think
other scholars would dare to do. However, she does a good job of explaining the
connection. The patriarch Antony II stated that “the Imperium and the Church are
interconnected and united”, a sentiment that Julian would have agreed with.32 The
Byzantines even after awhile began to refer to themselves not only as Christians, but
also as Greco-Romans. Athanassiadi captures this idea well when she states
Ammianus and Libanius’ final resting place for Julian. Ammianus states that Julian
should be brought to Rome, to be blessed by the presence of the deified emperors,
while Libanius believes Julian’s ashes should be placed in the Academy of Athens,
next to Plato’s ashes.33 True sentiments of “Hellenism”, the combination of
Romanitas and Hellenism.
Finally, Rowland Smith, in his book, Julian’s Gods, gives a dissenting opinion
in the matter of Julian’s religion and philosophy. Smith strictly goes against
Bowersock’s portrayal of Julian as a lonesome “puritanical pagan”, fanatically
imposing religion upon the masses.34 Smith also does not agree with Athanassiadi’s
view that Julian was a pagan monotheist, but rather a pagan polytheist as the title of
his book states. The focus of Smith’s book is to question whether Julian was a
32 Ibid. p. 229.33 Ibid. pgs. 231-232.34 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (New York, New York: Routledge, 1995). P. 220.
17
philosopher, to look at Julian’s Neo-Platonist theology, and a comprehensive
approach to Julian’s ideas of paideia.
To give strength to these arguments, Smith turns to the writings of Julian.
From the writings of Julian, Smith states that Julian was not philosopher, yet took on
the appearance of a philosopher. In his letter to Themistius, Julian declares that he
was no expert at philosophy, but rather a lover of philosophy.35 Smith therefore
claims that Julian’s concept of paideia does not stem from philosophy, although
philosophy was included, but rather included much rhetoric as well.36 Smith draws
from Julian’s love of Homer for his evidence. Although Julian states, “he was kept
pure with the help of philosophy”37, perhaps what he considers “philosophy” may
simply be the idea of Greek culture, which in this case did included much of classic
rhetoric.
However, much like Athanassiadi’s “intellectual biography”, Smith’s
portrayal of Julian is difficult to discern. Overall, Smith tells us more so what Julian is
not, rather than what Julian is. This is based upon Smith’s refutation of other Julian
historians such as Bowersock and Athanassiadi. Smith therefore states that Julian is
not an isolated, puritanical pagan with few friends, as Bowersock has portrayed
Julian. Early in his discussion of Julian as a writer, Smith states that Julian wrote to
many friends, not restricted to his theurgic mentors.38 In one letter, Julian gives an
estate he inherited to the rhetor Evagrius saying
35 Ibid. pgs. 16-17.36 Ibid. pgs. 221.37 Ibid. pgs. 25.38 Ibid. p. 10.
18
Now I give it to you as a present, my dear-a small one, but precious for coming from a friend to a friend, ‘From home, towards home’, as the learned Pindar states.39
From this statement, we can gather that Julian was a rather personable man,
who did have several friends, not just the ones surrounding his deathbed. As to
Athanassiadi’s Julian, Smith does not diverge too much from her portrayal. He does
show that Julian is not so much a lover of Neo-Platonic philosophy, as he is a lover of
Greek education, similar to what he received, growing up. Considering his religion to
be monotheism or henotheism is false, according to Smith. Julian praises more the
one god, a defining feature of polytheism. However, this should not be surprising to
an “intellectual biographer”. If Julian would want to recreate Hellenistic culture, or
paideia, he would want to take everything along with it, which would include a
polytheistic religion.
Gathering evidence of Julian’s portrayal within “intellectual biographies” is a
difficult matter. The authors are rather indecisive of how to portray Julian, unlike
Bowersock who will come right out and say that Julian was a “puritanical pagan”.
Although I do not agree with this portrayal of Julian, I still respect it being a definite
portrayal. The “intellectual biographies” on the other hand seem to be “on the fence”
in the discussion of who Julian was and more definite on what Julian was not. I do
agree, however, in Smith’s portrayal as a man with a personable sense of humor. I
am sure that if Julian had composed his Caesars in a place other than Antioch, it
would have been a complete hit. Unfortunately, his satire fell upon Christian ears.
39 Ibid. p. 10.
19
The main criticisms for the “intellectual biography” come from its focus. It is
a difficult endeavor to try to divulge and person’s psyche from their writings, let
alone other writings as well. Who is sure that Julian’s psyche is present within his
own writings, considering they were mostly public, not private. However, this is not
to say that Julian’s feelings are not present within his works. On the contrary, Julian
was never afraid to say what he thought needed to be said, which is evident from his
polemics against the Cynics and Christians.
As for source work amongst these modern works, all of them generally used
similar literary sources. However, it is the method of using those sources that I find
scrutiny. For example, Ricciotti uses similar literary sources as the other modern
works in his bibliography, but focuses on using the Christian historians such as
Sozomen and Theodoret. No doubt these accounts allow Ricciotti to paint is view of
Julian as a superstitious persecutor of Christians. Not only this, Ricciotti takes the
primary source’s word without considering the world in which the ancient author
lives in. At least with accounts like Browning, the world in which the source is
written is taken into account. Therefore, Julian is not seen as a lone superstitious
pagan in a sea of devout Christians. Rather, Julian is superstitious like many in Late
Antiquity.
As Bowersock, I stated earlier that his criticism of sources grants his work
the standard label. For his literary sources, he acknowledges that the sources for
Julian’s life range from pagan to Christian, in different ages. However, in order to
locate the “truest” image of Julian, Bowersock devises a method commonly used in
20
historical Gospel studies, the common source. Noting the similarities between
similar accounts, but by different authors, allows a historian make the accusation
that perhaps both of these authors used an earlier source for their writings.
However, this becomes an issue because of the possibility that one of the similar
authors could have been the only source, and thus there is no original source to
copy. In the case of Julian, Bowersock notes that Zosimus and Ammianus’ accounts
are very similar, but Zosimus wrote his account in the 6th century, whereas
Ammianus wrote his account several decades after the death of Julian. However,
according to the patriarch Photius, Zosimus used Eunapius of Sardis’ history of
Julian as his main source.40 Now the reason why this is important, is that Eunapius’
account, now extant, was written using a memoir written by Oribasius, Julian’s
personal physician. Therefore, Bowersock claims that Ammianus wrote his account
also with Eunapius’ account as a main source, to fill in parts of the story Ammianus
did not witness. Using this knowledge it is possible to gain a better view of the
“historical” Julian. However, one problem remains with this approach to the sources,
the original source. Oribasius, being one of Julian’s closest friends, may have the
closely related account, but he is also incredibly biased. He was not only one of
Julian’s best friends, but also according to some of the modern authors, an initiate of
the Mysteries. The chances of Oribasius having anything but praise for the emperor
Julian is slim to none. Therefore, it is critical to look at this means of source work
with a grain of salt, and not to take it at face value.
40 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 3.
21
Overall, each of these authors gives their own view of Julian, and each one
seems to conflict with the other. The very nature of the study of the emperor Julian
is controversial. The writers of his biographies have an agenda to stand by, as do
many writers of today as well. Not only this, Julian lived in a confusing, ambivalent
time. The question of whether he is Christian or not comes into play often, but only
becomes in issue concerning his “conversion” to paganism. Focus on his theology or
philosophy can create an even more convoluted mess of the emperor Julian. In the
span of decades, we as historians still cannot agree on who Julian was. The legends
set up by Christian apologists cloud the vision of the emperor Julian, and so we are
left with historical doubts. To give just an example of this, Julian’s image has gone
from being a “harbinger of times irrevocably past”41, to a man who rather than “turn
the clock back”, created a new religion surrounding Hellenism42. It can be seen that
Julian studies are far from over, and I believe that more can be done concerning the
study Julian and the rumors about him. Sources such as letters, not necessarily by
Julian, but concerning Julian are pieces of evidence that we as historians should
consider in order to gain a better view of what the people thought of Julian. We
gather from the ancient sources that he was hated by most, if not all, the Christians,
but what did people in Persia think of him. Ricciotti, surprisingly, is the only modern
author to describe what the Persians thought of Julian. Quoting Libanius
They are said to have likened him to a thunderbolt, drawing a thunderbolt and writing his name near it;
41 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 258.42 Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual Biography (New York, New York: Routledge, 1992). P. 122.
22
thereby indicating that he had inflicted upon them calamities beyond the power of mere human nature.43
I believe that more can be done with Julian studies concerning his
relationship with the Gauls and how the Persians viewed him. However, Julian
studies have always been fascinated by Julian’s relationship with Neo-Platonism and
his aversion to Christianity, and as such, will most likely dominate the studies of
Julian.
43 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 257.
23
BibliographyAthanassiadi, Polymnia. Julian: An Intellectual Biography. New York, New York: Routledge, 1992.
Bowersock, G. W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Browning, Robert. The Emperor Julian. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1978.
Ricciotti, Abbot Giuseppe. Julian the Apostate. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960.
Smith, Rowland. Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate . New York, New York: Routledge, 1995.
24