36
Ben Rogaczewski

A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

This paper briefly describes to the reader the recent historical scholarship on Emperor Julian, also called "The Apostate", and gives the reader some idea of where future research is headed.

Citation preview

Page 1: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

Ben Rogaczewski

Page 2: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 3: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 4: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 5: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 6: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 7: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 8: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 9: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 10: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 11: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 12: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 13: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 14: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 15: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 16: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 17: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 18: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 19: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 20: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 21: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 22: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 23: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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

Page 24: A Brief Look at Julian the Apostate

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