Julian’s
Nachleben
: The Emperor’s Changing Legacy
By Aaron Grehan
Supervisor: Dr. Lucinda Dirven
University of Amsterdam
Classics and Ancient Civilisations – Ancient History
Master Thesis
Table of Contents
Introduction:
p. 3
Contemporaneous Sources:
p. 6
Medieval Sources:
p. 25
The Enlightenment:
p. 31
Modern Sources:
p. 41
Julian’s Works:
p. 55
Chronicling Julian’s Developing Nachleben:
p. 63
Introduction
For a short period of nineteen months in the middle of the fourth century, a pagan was the sole emperor of the Roman Empire. His reign was brief, his impact on the history of the empire was negligible, and he died from a spear thrust from an unknown Persian soldier while taking part in his first military campaign as Augustus. A cursory glance at his
achievements would place him in fine company alongside many failed emperors, forgotten as usurpers or ineffectual leaders. However, Julian’s presence in the academic and public consciousness throughout history has been vivid and vibrant, a figure of many biographies, polemics, and plays, portrayed throughout history either as a man of enlightenment or as an oppressive immoral apostate. The reasons for this are rooted in context: following
Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312CE and later becoming sole emperor, Constantine introduced Christianity as a socially-acceptable religion by identifying himself as a member. While the empire would not become officially Christian until the reign of Theodosius I late in the fourth century, the circumstances that led to that resolution began with Constantine’s ascension to power. This process continued with the reign of the second son of Constantine, Constantius II, but was hindered when Julian
acquired the purple. Julian was a member of the Neoplatonist school, and a firm Hellene in philosophy and religion. His short rule is identified as a power struggle between traditional Greco-Roman polytheism, and the developing cultural mores of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy and morality.
Yet this conflict would be as short as Julian’s reign. His friends grieved for his death, and his opponents felt it was a fate justly deserved. Rather than falling into obscurity,
however, Julian developed into a figure of renown long after Christianity established itself as a spiritual authority over Europe. Moving into the Enlightenment period, Julian became a frame of reference for all those who would struggle against organised religion. Edward Gibbon, in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Voltaire, in his essays and pamphlets, presented an idealised version of the emperor, whose struggle against Christianity was to be admired and his death was to be considered a travesty.
However, Julian’s memory didn’t die in the eighteenth century, but continues to the present day, with numerous biographies written in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, such as Robert Browning’s The Emperor Julian in the 1960s, and Adrian Murdoch’s The Last Pagan in 2003. There is a large quantity of writing about Julian, yet the extent of its transformation throughout historiography remains unexplored. How was Julian discussed
contemporaneously, and how has this changed from that point to the present day? Have the political circumstances of the time he is written about have any notable influence on the portrayal? How consistent is the historiography through the centuries?
In the following sections, we will firstly analyse the content of writings from Julian’s contemporaries in order to better understand how the man was perceived by those who lived under him. After this, we will compare that with how the writers of the Enlightenment changed the narrative surrounding Julian from its medieval developments. Thirdly, we will look how the memory of Julian has been interpreted in the twentieth century to the modern day, in all the new forms of art and entertainment that the twentieth century brought with it. At this point, we will then look back at Julian’s letters, and see how this incredible
resource has been undervalued through much of the historiography. Even though all writers speak of the same historical figure, we shall encounter different characters and caricatures, all representing a different, often conflicting, account of the controversial figure admired and
hated in equal measure. By looking at a variety of modern sources, and comparing them to contemporaneous sources such as the accounts of Ammianus Marcellinus, Libanius, and Julian’s own letters, I hope to chart the development of Julian from Emperor to Apostate to Enlightened Man throughout the historiographical record.
Contemporaneous Sources
Immediately following Julian’s death, his contemporaries were eager to share their thoughts on what had occurred. Below, we have a selection of surviving texts from various writers of different backgrounds that share both their grief and their exuberance upon hearing the news of the emperor’s death, and each discuss what they believe are the implications of it. Of these individuals, we know that Libanius and Gregory knew Julian personally, while Ammianus Marcellinus’ attachment is uncertain. Regardless, each writer has much to say of the emperor who was their contemporary, friend, enemy, or associate, together they form the foundation for the development of Julian’s nachleben.
Ammianus Marcellinus
Marcellinus was a Roman soldier-turned-historian whose partial extant work, the Res
Gestae, offers us a first-hand account into the events surrounding Julian’s life, and is easily
the most substantive of the surviving primary sources detailing his reign. Having served under Constantius and possibly Julian, Marcellinus discusses both men, paying special attention towards the reactions of their soldiers to their actions. His history, which originally began at the beginning of Nerva’s reign and concluded with the death of Valens, is a simply-written and literal account of imperial history, yet includes a lot of evidence of Marcellinus’ personal feelings regarding the events he writes about. As a pagan, Marcellinus is evidently supportive of Julian’s reign and views him in a largely positive light throughout the work. As a military veteran, he is very interested in the detail of Julian’s campaigns, while political
machinations and societal analysis come secondary. As far as historical accuracy is
concerned, Marcellinus is the most trustworthy of all the contemporaneous sources, since there is no record that Marcellinus was a personal friend or enemy of Julian. While he largely approves of Julian’s reign, written after his death, it is not self-serving for him to do so, and as he was hoping to follow in the legacy of Livy by continuing to chronicle the history of Rome, veracity was to be his aim.
Julian’s first substantial appearance in Marcellinus’ history is the event of his
ascension to Caesar following the execution of his half-brother Gallus. Constantius chose to ignore the advice of his intimates, who, in Marcellinus’ words, were “trained to excessive flattery”, and chose to say that Constantius had no need for a Caesar to replace Gallus.1 In
his speech presenting Julian to the army for the approval of the position, Constantius greatly complements Julian by describing him as “young man of quiet strength”, who has benefitted from a lifetime of education.2 While it could be argued that he would not have done so had
he known of Julian’s true beliefs, it is clear that Constantius respected his cousin’s qualities. Yet it is also certain that this position was given to Julian in order to give him the authority to defend the empire from barbarian invaders in Gaul. The conclusion of Constantius’ speech makes this clear, telling Julian to go forth, “urged by the great crisis…yourself a brave man, ready to lead men equally brave.”3 Yet it was not just Constantius that bestowed favours
upon Julian, but the soldiers that had convened for the address. Marcellinus states that “after this address was ended, no one held his peace, but all the soldiers with fearful din
1 “And several…added that the title of Caesar ought henceforth to be avoided”. Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XV, p. 167
2 “His excellent disposition, trained in all good arts, I seem to have fully described by the very fact that I have chosen him.” Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XV, p. 169
struck their shields against their knees”, which was a sign of near unanimous approval of their new commander.4
Despite the religious terminology that Constantius spoke with during his speech, it is clear very early in Marcellinus’ work that Julian remained a pagan despite his family history. One of the first cities that Julian visited in Gaul was Vienne. Julian had received news that Cologne had been sacked by barbarians, and he was feeling that, being given command of Gaul and its defence, he was trying to accomplish the impossible.5 However, his mood was
elevated upon entering Vienne to find the people had come out to welcome him, and also to present some of their domestic issues for him to help them solve. However, much like a scene in a Greek tragedy, Marcellinus writes that an old, blind woman asked who it was that had entered the city. Upon hearing that it was the Caesar Julian, she is said to have “cried out that he would repair the temples of the Gods.”6 The inclusion of such a premonition is
reflective of Marcellinus’ desire to present a legend of Julian before he has done anything to deserve such recognition.
Over the following sections, Marcellinus describes Julian’s many successes in his military campaign in Gaul, even reconquering Cologne from the Franks. Despite these grand victories, Marcellinus decides to instil upon the reader a sense of Julian’s austerity and discipline, traits that were considered admirable in Roman society.7 He followed the advice
of Constantius, and chose not to eat sow or pheasant, but instead “contenting himself with the coarse and ordinary rations of a common soldier.”8 Marcellinus writes that Julian
4 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XV, p. 173
5 “he was often heard to mutter in complaining tones that he had gained nothing, except to die with heavier work.” Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XV, p. 175
6 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XV, p. 175
7 “… he imposed moderation on himself, and kept to it, as if he were living bound by the sumptuary laws which were brought to Rome…” Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVI, p. 215
imitated the nightly practices of Alexander the Great, scheduling time for rest, organising the affairs of state, as well as taking time for creative pursuits. Yet, according to Marcellinus, he “was far more self-reliant,”9 than Alexander (and it is implied he is superior to him), namely
because he chose to arise from sleep from a soldier’s worn rug rather than the comforts that Alexander enjoyed from Persian plunder.10 These defences of Julian’s character are
deliberately placed to precede the accusations made by Marcellus, a general in Julian’s army, who Marcellinus describes as “a vain talkative fool and all but mad”.11 The content of these
accusations contradict everything that Marcellinus had been described previously, namely that Julian was “being arrogant and already fitting himself with stronger pinions, so as to soar up higher”,12 which would incite the ire of Constantius, who had executed Gallus for
similar supposed crimes. Marcellus’ claims were ignored by Constantius, however, who took the word of Eutherius, the head chamberlain of Constantine’s palace, who vouched for Julian’s integrity. He was so virtuous, according to Marcellinus, that “he would sometimes criticise even Julian”.13
Following his success against the kings of the Alamanni and the Franks, Marcellinus reports that his troops, in their reverie, proclaimed Julian to be Augustus, since he was “a man of greater mark than his position”.14 However, Marcellinus describes how Julian rebuked
his soldiers for their unanimous decision, as he had no desire or inclination to become the Augustus or challenge his cousin for the title.15 While this does follow Marcellinus’ narrative
of portraying Julian as a modest hero of Roman virtue, it would also illustrate Julian’s keen
9 Ibid.
10 “…he always got up, not from a downy couch or silken coverlets glittering with varied hues, but from a rough blanket and rug,” Ibid.
11 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVI, p. 227 12 Ibid.
13 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVI, p. 229 14 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVI, p. 299
15 “…but he rebuked the soldiers for their thoughtless action, and declared with an oath that he neither expected nor desired to attain that honour.” Ibid.
political acumen. Julian knew that an open challenge to Constantius’ authority would mean that their relationship would break down, and Julian would have needed to control the ramifications of the situation if he was to be victorious.
Yet the loyalty of his soldiers was not always absolute. On the banks of the river Meuse, when provisions were running short and the soldiers were disappointed to find that the harvests they were hoping to claim from the Chamavi were not yet fully grown, they turned on Julian in their frustration. In their discontent, “they assailed Julian with foul names and opprobrious language, calling him an Asiatic, a Greekling and a deceiver, and a fool with a show of wisdom.”16 This is perhaps a more true reflection of what Julian’s soldiers thought
of him outside of their ceremonies and the conclusion of great victories, the words spoken by the campfire at night rather than in his imperial presence. What is also notable is that Marcellinus doesn’t refute these insults, but agrees with the plight of the soldiers. He states that, since Julian’s arrival, throughout the course of the campaign they had received no pay from Julian for the hardships they had to endure.17 Yet despite allowing these insults to be
heard, Marcellinus claims that Julian is not at fault. Marcellinus blames Constantius for Julian’s financial problems, as Constantius had deliberately not given Julian any funds with which to pay his soldiers, in a deliberate attempt to undermine him.18 Marcellinus doesn’t
elaborate on why this would have been the case, as Constantius had much to gain if Julian were to secure Gaul from invasion, yet he does illustrate how Julian is further insulted in Constantius’ court. Upon hearing the reports of Julian’s military successes, “all those who
16 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVII, p. 355
17 “For through all their career of laudable achievements, and the critical moments of hazard, the soldiers, though worn out by their labours in Gaul, had received neither donative nor pay from the very day that Julian was sent there…” Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVII, p. 357
18 “[Julian] himself had no funds available anywhere from which to give, nor did Constantius allow any to be expended in the usual manner. And it was evident that this was done through malice rather than through niggardliness…” Ibid.
had the chief influence in the palace and were now past masters in flattery turned Julian’s well-devised and successful achievements into mere mockery by endless silly jests…”19 These
insults, such as a “nanny goat and no man”, “an ape in purple”, and “a Greek pedant”20 were
supposedly just the type of rhetoric that Constantius wanted to hear.21 These examples fit
Marcellinus’ portrayal of Julian very well: a virtuous commander beset by enemies within and without, forced to contend with problems that he had not caused, and eager to undermine his success in spite of their best efforts to deny it to him in the first place.
Yet over time, Marcellinus describes that hearing of Julian’s military successes and the increasing esteem that he had earned, Constantius was envious and sought to weaken his authority by ordering the withdrawal of many Gaulish auxiliaries, and three hundred men from every other division, with the reason proffered being that they were needed for an offensive against the Parthians in the following spring.22 This placed Julian in a precarious
situation, as he had promised his troops that they would never need to travel beyond the Alps and could remain with their loved ones.23 While Julian relented to Constantius’ order,
his commanders were not silent in their discontent, writing a letter that opined that “we verily are driven to the ends of the earth like condemned criminals, and our dear ones, whom we freed from their former captivity after mortal battles, will again be slaves to the Alamanni.”24 Since Julian was held to the commands of his superior, the soldiers collectively
decided to declare Julian Augustus, to his outright displeasure. He bid them to stop their rebellious demands and simply to return to their homes, because if they left the army, they
19 Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVII, p. 365 20 Ibid.
21 “..by ringing bells, so to speak, in the ears of an emperor eager to hear these and similar things, they tried to bury his merits with shameless speeches…” Ibid.
22 “…he ordered him to hasten their march under the pretext that they might be able to be on hand for an attack on the Parthians early in the spring.” Marcellinus Vol. II, Book XX, p. 17
23 “that those men should suffer no inconvenience who had left their abodes beyond the Rhine and come to him under promise that they should never be led to regions beyond the Alps.” Marcellinus Vol. II, p. 19 24 Marcellinus Vol. II, p. 23
could not be held to Constantius’ orders.25 Despite this, and unlike Libanius, who stated that
Julian really desired to become Augustus, Marcellinus describes how he was forced into taking the title amidst “loud and urgent outcries mingled with abuse and insults”.26 He later
describes that this event was divinely ordained, as Julian had had a dream the night before where a guardian spirit stated that it had long wished to increase Julian’s worldly position, but had been rejected.27 In this way, Marcellinus presents Julian rise to power as a matter of
divine will as well as public demand – in his portrayal, Julian’s rise to the title of Augustus was inevitable.
Much like Libanius, Marcellinus credits Julian with being a defender of civilisation by maintaining the word of law. For example, he writes of a circumstance where Julian is overlooking the trial of Numerius, a former governor of Gallia Narbonensis. He had been accused of corruption and embezzlement, but denied the charge, and no evidence could be found to prove it. Delphidius, a prosecuting speaker, was exasperated by this state of affairs, beseeching Julian that denying a charge was enough to mean that the accused could be acquitted of their charge.28 Yet Julian turns Delphidius’ statement back upon him, asking
whether it were just that, merely being accused of a crime meant that one was guilty of it.29
Marcellinus expresses how impressed he is at Julian’s wisdom on this matter, and states that it is only one of many examples of his strong sense of humanity.30
25 “…since it is the charm of your native land that holds you back and you dread strange places with which you are unacquainted, return at once to your homes; you shall see nothing beyond the Alps…” Marcellinus Vol. II, pp. 25-27
26 Marcellinus Vol. II, p. 27
27 “I been secretly watching the vestibule of your house, desiring to increase your rank, and I have often gone away as though rebuffed.” Marcellinus Vol. II, p. 35
28 “’Can anyone, most mighty Caesar, ever be found guilty, if it be enough to deny the charge?’“ Marcellinus Vol. I, Book XVIII, p. 405
29 “’Can anyone be proved innocent, if it be enough to have accused him?’” Ibid. 30 “And this was one of many like instances of humanity.” Ibid.
Throughout the Res Gestae, Julian continues to be represented in such a manner. While Marcellinus doesn’t ignore the negative aspects of his reign, especially when the welfare of the soldiery is concerned, he will choose to defend Julian’s moral position throughout his telling of his life. Constantius is presented as the malevolent force that acts to undermine Julian’s gains and political standing so that his eventually ascension to
Augustus is deemed just and deserving. While a reliable source for the historical detail of the period, Marcellinus’ personal outlook on Julian undoubtedly shapes his biographical telling of his life’s accomplishments.
Libanius
Julian, having been raised away from the Christian court of his imperial cousin, attached himself to many Neoplatonist philosophers and writers. Libanius, one of his closest friends, first encountered Julian in Nicomedia, when Julian moved there in the winter of 351 for his schooling.31 Libanius was open in his paganism, and wrote many letters to Julian both before
and after he became emperor. Back in Constantinople, Julian’s former Christian tutor, Hecebolius, had demanded that Julian not attend any of Libanius’ lectures32 – and Julian
complied by paying someone to take notes in his absence.33 As such, we cannot completely
trust the historical veracity of Libanius’ words, since his attachment to Julian was so close and his grief so evident. However, these sources grant us an excellent insight into the
31 “…[Constantius] had him packed off to Nicomedeia, since that city would cause him not nearly so much alarm, and there he provided facilities for his education.” Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 287
32 “The reason for the fact that he found pleasure in my oratory and yet avoided its author was that
marvellous teacher of his. [Hecebolius] had bound him with many fearsome oaths never to be or to be called my pupil and never to be enrolled on the list of my students.” Ibid.
33 “He got someone, at considerable expense, to convey to him my lectures each day.” Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 289
outlook of Julian’s supporters during his life, alongside the beginnings of how he was to be remembered by those who mourned his passing.
In all of his letters to Julian, Libanius frequently sings many praises upon the young man, complementing him on the depth of his general learning and oratorical ability,34 as well
as the esteem he held for his good ancestry.35 It is of no surprise, then, that upon hearing of
his death in Persia, Libanius was aggrieved by the news. He wrote a long funeral oration in Julian’s memory, containing not only many complements, but also a summary of his own association with him. Libanius mourns the future that should have been, where “Roman governors instead of satraps should now be administering their territory”, rather than the reality where “his dead body has been brought back from the borders of Babylon.”36 He
expresses that there was been an emotional outcry, where “tears, as you would expect, have flowed from every eye and still could not prevent his death”.37
Yet of course, as an avowed pagan, Libanius respected Julian for coming to the same beliefs as his own. While we have no definitive statements as to when Julian converted to Neoplatonism, or much beyond anecdotes regarding his own Christian piety as a youth, Libanius was very pleased to have seen a pagan emperor gain power once again. With Hecebolius as a teacher, Libanius argues, Julian had a challenging upbringing, but he also confronted his former teacher with his intellectual authority.38 Libanius states that he was
greatly impressed by Julian’s ability in being able to keep “enduring this incompetence in
34 “And as you are ranked among the learned, you maintain, I am told, that Demosthenes could not have written more forcibly, Socrates more agreeably or Plato more copiously on the occasion.” Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 283
35 “…as regards his parentage, his grandfather was an emperor who held wealth in especial contempt and won the especial affection of his subjects.” Ibid.
36 Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 279 37 Ibid.
38 “A good-for-nothing teacher had the lad as a reward for his abuse of the gods…” Libanis, Oration XVIII, p. 287
rhetoric because of the war waged against the altars by his teacher.”39 Libanius states that it
was impossible for Julian to be true to his beliefs because of how Constantius would react if he had known. He states that, if Aesop was to have written a fable about Julian, it would be of a lion dressed in a donkey skin, rather than the opposite: “though he really knew what was right to know, he pretended a knowledge of what was safer.”40 Regardless, Libanius
presents his classical education and pagan philosophy as a second birth;41 an intellectual
enlightenment that liberated him from the base nature of “all that earlier nonsense, and in its place introducing into his soul the beauty of truth”.42
In contradiction to Ammianus Marcellinus’ account, Libanius states that Julian really held a desire to become emperor. He says that he and his fellow philosophers wished that Julian would gain the position, as it would help avoid an inevitable course of destruction as the empire slid into ruin, so caused by Christianity.43 However, even as complimentary as
Libanius is of Julian, he does not claim in his oration that Julian would disapprove of these prayers, saying that Julian would not directly declare his desire for power, but hid this desire from the public.44 Even still, this is not a flaw in Julian’s character, as he would have held this
desire in a just context, where he is saving the empire from the dubiousness of Christianity. Rather than claim the position solely for luxury, material wealth, and power, he would become emperor in order to achieve “the restoration by his own efforts of the worship of the gods in particular to the empire whence it had been expelled.”45 This resolution came
upon Julian as he saw pagan temples being robbed and altars overturned, and there seemed
39 Ibid.
40 Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 291
41 “Finally, he met with people who were steeped with the learning of Plato, and he learned of gods and spirits and the real creators and saviours of this whole universe…” Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 “On the lips of every man of sense was the prayer that the lad should become the ruler of the empire, that an end be put to the ruin of civilization” Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 293
44 “go so far as to say that he disapproved of such prayers. I shall make no such boast about him.” Ibid. 45 Ibid.
to be none in authority that would come to defend them. To conclude, “his anxiety,
therefore, was not for power but for the well-being of the cities”,46 as Libanius perceived it.
Much like Marcellinus, however, Libanius states that Julian was given the position of Caesar because of his extensive classical education, rather than in spite of it – something that Libanius is eager to point out.47 However, he chooses to express the concern that Julian
had for becoming Caesar, as he would be in closer contact with the man who had murdered his family, and was likely to meet the same ignominious fate as Gallus.48 Yet, also like
Marcellinus, Libanius has a premonitious tale that tells of Julian’s inevitable rise to emperor. Upon entering the city of Vienne, a garland of leaves, all customarily suspended among the columns for decoration, broke loose from its fastenings and fell onto Julian’s head. The crowd cheered at the obvious implication: Julian was destined for success and destined to conquer.49 The successful turning of the tide for the Roman army in Gaul against the
barbarians came also, according to Libanius, because of Julian – not merely for superior command and strategy, but because of the effect he had on the soldiery, who now revelled in the fight, inspired by the presence of their future emperor. “They did not actually see the emperor but had been inspired by his nearness”,50 Libanius says, while even those who
would, in other circumstances, be of the mind to retreat against the odds “cast away their fears and stayed.”51 Yet Libanius spares many words for Julian’s military strength, and details
many of his excursions against the tribes that invaded Gaul, and the Franks that he attacked beyond the Rhine. His success was so absolute, and his mercy so overflowing, that he was
46 Ibid.
47 “…in consequence of his very philosophy he inspired confidence in the man who had wronged him most…” Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 299
48 “Julian had no grounds for believing that this advancement would not turn out to be a snare, for the blood already shed gave him reason to come to this conclusion.” Ibid.
49 “…for by this crown, obviously, his future triumphs were foretold…” Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 305 50 Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 307
successful in securing the aid of some barbarian tribes in order to fight against Julian’s enemies, as “he employed barbarians who thought it more honourable to pursue in his company than to flee in theirs.”52
Inevitably, Constantius eventually came into conflict with Julian when he was declared Augustus in the West by his troops. Libanius describes Constantius’ demands as being more than simply abdicating from his position, but also to dissolve his army, which would betray his allies as they had no further protection from Constantius. Libanius describes Julian’s reaction to this impasse as in terms that indicate his selflessness, as “though Julian had but slight regard for his own life, he was most reluctant to turn traitor to all that he held dear.”53
Libanius’ account of Julian’s character cannot be unquestionably accepted as
historical truth due to the dubious historicity of the material. Libanius writes with an obvious bias, mourning the death of a close friend, and the oration was not intended to be shared beyond the Neoplatonists that would feel the same way as he did. Yet despite the
questionable nature of the details, the sentiment within the oration has historical value in that it represents the outlook of those that supported Julian in life as well as death. The Hellenophiles mourned Julian’s death as one of their own, and as the death of the promise that he represented: the return of pagan worship to its previous, respected position in society. In death, Julian could be the perfect hero that represented all they perceived as good and just, and by that same token, his end also represented the consequences that an unimpeded Christianity meant for the longevity of their pagan worship.
52 Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 329 53 Libanius, Oration XVIII, p. 347
Gregory of Nazianzus
Gregory was a Christian theologian in the fourth century, and became an influential figure in the early church. Like many other Christians in his time, he received a classical education while maintaining and developing his own Trinitarian beliefs. Gregory first met Julian when they were both receiving their education in Athens, but merely remained acquaintances. By the time Julian became sole emperor, Gregory had entered the priesthood, and put his classical training to use by writing two invectives against Julian. These invectives remain excellent contrarian primary sources to compete against the accounts of Libanius and Ammianus Marcellinus. Following the death of Julian, Gregory continued to ascend through the ranks of the church, eventually becoming the Archbishop of Constantinople late in the fourth century. Similar to Libanius, the truth of his accounts are highly suspect, as he writes from the inverse perspective: as a Christian who opposed Julian in life as well as death, his sense of vindication for what he sees as an act of divine intervention acts as the original source for the millennium of Christian discourse on the development of Julian’s negative legacy, lambasted for daring to once challenge the authority of the church.
To understate the fact, Gregory was displeased with Julian’s reign as emperor. His invectives, written following the death of Julian in Persia, are blunt in their condemnation, granting him titles such as “…the Dragon, the Apostate, the Great Mind, the Assyrian, the public and private enemy of all in common…”54 Likewise, Gregory states that Julian was a
tyrant, and that his determined objection of Christian belief guaranteed that God would strike him dead.55 Gregory is clear that his hatred of Julian is not only directed at his policies
against Christianity, but also against his policies towards the written word itself. He states
54 Gregory, p. 1
that these invectives are a fitting punishment against Julian, as although words are “the common property of all rational beings, he begrudged [words] to the Christians, as though they were his own exclusively”.56 In this section, he may be referring to Julian’s educational
policy where Christian teachers were unable to teach using classical, pagan texts, effectively banning Christians from partaking in the established classical form of education.
Through Gregory’s account, in great contradiction to Libanius, he says that the people were delighted upon hearing the news of Julian’s death. “Already does my speech leap, and exult”, he says, “and grows joyous along with those that hasten onwards, and summons unto the spiritual dance all who were giving themselves over to fastings, to weeping, and to prayer; by day and night beseeching for deliverance out of the troubles that beset them.”57 Gregory lists some of these troubles, saying that Christians had their property
taken by Julian, and were also sent into exile away from their homes and their families.58 Yet
he also has contempt for those who failed to withstand Julian’s imperial manoeuvring and turned away from Christianity when it became politically advantageous. Gregory excludes them “from the festive assembly”59 of Christians that are collectively joyous at the news of
Julian’s death, who, “upon a brief assault from the Evil One, and a slight blast of persecution, have withered up and died away.”60 Christians who were untrue to their faith, from Gregory’s
viewpoint, had proven themselves unworthy of joining them in their revelry and had to await damnation alongside the dead emperor.
56 Gregory, p. 3 57 Gregory, p. 5
58 “…who have submitted with joy to the robbery of their possessions, or banished unjustly, as the saying is, from their own country, severed, for a brief space, from husbands, or wives, or parents, or children, or by whatever other names of kindred less close we are bound…” Ibid.
59 Gregory, p. 7 60 Ibid.
In the following sections, Gregory enumerates many of what he interprets as the crimes that Julian is responsible for. He makes clear reference to Constantius’ brutal rise to power, and cites Julian and Gallus’ survival as “a preservation beyond all belief and
expectation.”61 However, Gregory interprets Julian’s survival as a divine mercy that Julian
then betrays by giving in to apostasy and paganism, betraying both God and Constantius together for allowing his survival.62 In a half-truth, he states that Julian was awarded a
princely youth in Cappadocia, raised within a castle and given a rich and valuable education, but fails to mention that it came at the cost of what was effectively imprisonment, as he was unable to contact anyone beyond the servants under Constantius’ employ.63 This education
was not only of “the complete and regular course,”64 which refers to the classical forms of
education that would have been considered standard, such as learning Greek through classical texts such as Homer’s epics, but also extensively through “our own kind of
philosophy,”65 such as the works of Eusebius of Caesarea. He writes that this education had
had its effect on the young boys, since “both brothers offered and enrolled themselves among the clergy.”66 They publically read from sacred texts, which, in Gregory’s view,
bestowed upon them an honour and glory that spoke to the quality of their upbringing.67 Yet
despite the two boys presenting as good Christians, only Gallus “was genuine in his piety,”68
while Julian was “awaiting his opportunity, and concealing under a mask of goodness his evil
61 Gregory, p. 12
62 “…he neither felt gratitude for God for his escape nor for the emperor through whose means he had been preserved, but showed himself wicked towards both, by conceiving apostacy from the one and rebellion against the other.” Gregory, pp. 12-13
63 “they were honoured with a princely maintainance and education in one of the royal castles, being treasured up for imperial power by this most humane emperor, as the sole relics of his family”. Gregory, p. 13 64 Ibid.
65 Gregory, p. 14 66 Ibid.
67 “…reading aloud the sacred books to the people, thinking that this tended not a little to their glory, and that piety was a greater decoration than all things else.” Ibid.
disposition.”69 Gregory, while acknowledging that this education benefited the two boys, is
clear that he wishes they had never done so.70 His reasoning is that, by gifting them with an
education, they had been given the tools to damage themselves and others. Gregory grants power to the words of philosophy, “which to the good is the weapon of virtue, but to the ill-conditioned the incentive to vice.”71 By being educated, Julian was made a weapon against
Christianity, whereby were he left ignorant, his impiousness would have only brought suffering upon himself.
Much like Libanius and Marcellinus, Gregory recounts a tale that comfortably agrees with his confirmation bias. As Gallus and Julian were both evidently pious in their veneration of the Martyrs, both boys decided to create an edifice in respect to them. According to Gregory, Gallus’ edifice was constructed with ease, meeting its schedule “as though God readily accepted the offering.”72 Yet Julian’s was much more laboured, since “the earth shook
off what he had toiled at.”73 God had rejected Julian’s edifice because his faith was
unsound.74
Gregory speaks little of the transition of power between Gallus and Julian, not out of a lack of strong feeling, but “from a wish to spare both the maker and the sufferer, of both whom I respect the piety, although I approve not of their rashness.”75 His outlook is that
Gallus was worthy of punishment for his crimes, religious though they both were, and that Constantius could not have seen, though Julian’s deception, that he was raising the Evil One to power. He removes Constantius from the guilt for the damage to come by considering his
69 Ibid.
70 “…they began to handle the doctrines of philosophy (which I wish they had never done) …” Gregory, p. 17 71 Ibid.
72 Gregory, p. 15 73 Ibid.
74 “…as though she were crying aloud at the shaking of the world that was about to proceed from him, and doing honour to the Martyrs through the dishonour she did to the most impious of men.” Ibid.
actions within their context, as Julian was raised to Caesar “partly with his consent, and partly because he was forced by the lot of all, and was overcome by compulsion, which proved evil and ruinous to the whole world.”76 Constantius’ only mistake in life, in Gregory’s
perception, was to allow Julian to rise to Caesar, and he was blessed in all other faculties.77
The closest attempt that Gregory makes to humanising Julian comes from sympathy for his feelings on the plight of Gallus. “For if I must make any apology for [Julian], in the midst of my indictment”, he says, “the fellow does not seem to me to have rebelled against those that have set him up, and to have sought to have free scope for his own folly, so much out of resentment for the loss of his brother…as because he could not endure the spread of Christianity, and had run mad against the Faith…”78 In Gregory’s outlook, while Julian
maintained a hatred for Christianity and those who believed in it, he was also hurt by the loss of his brother, even if he had been his ideological opposite. While much of Gregory’s invective is focused upon accosting Julian with supernatural insults, such as Dragon and Evil One, this is a rare attempt at expressing empathy, found nestled within the litany of
accusations that he places against Julian.
These contemporaneous sources comprise much of the primary source material that has survived of Julian, and helps to indicate to us what kind of legacy he had already formed after his death. His close pagan ally, Libanius, mourns his death as if the hopes of a
prosperous civilisation had also died with it. Marcellinus respected much of Julian’s
character and policies, but did not mourn him in the same way. Gregory, on the other hand, was exultant and cheerful, seeing Christianity being replaced as the superior religion of
76 Ibid.
77 “Thou that wert led by God’s own hand in every action and purpose, whose prudence was admired more than his valour, and his valour again more than his prudence, and yet more admirable than his glory in both was his piety.” Gregory, p. 20
choice as not only good for the religion, but for the empire itself. In the next section, we will see how Julian’s memory was developed in the Middle Ages, in a time where Christian authority became absolute. When Julian’s pagan friends met their inevitable death and pagan worship was suppressed and made illegal, Julian’s nachleben came under the command of Christians, who would make Julian’s legacy suit their own purposes.
Medieval Sources
Despite the death of Julian and the decline of the Western Roman Empire, the public memory of the emperor failed to meet the same end. Over the millennium after Julian died, he would not be mentioned at length, but when referenced, would always come to
represent evil and apostasy, his life defamed in the context of the Christian establishment that successfully organised itself in the centuries to follow. When Julian is recalled, it is in fleeting references where it is necessary to refer to a symbol of the base and degraded aspects of humanity. Over this section, we will briefly look at some of these references and what they indicate about how Julian is remembered in the period before humanism
developed.
The
Golden Legend
: John and Paul
One of the most popular religious works of the Medieval world, the Golden Legend is a collection of hagiographies (biographies of saints) written in the 13th Century by the
then-Archbishop of Genoa, Jacobus de Voragine. Within this enormous work, the hagiographies of the two saints John and Paul are told. These men should not be confused with the Apostolic John and Paul, but are instead two eunuchs who served Constantine’s daughter, Constantia.
Within the Golden Legend, we have a formalised legendary account of John and Paul’s lives. The tale follows that one of Constantine’s generals, Gallicanus, was earned such renown fighting in Dacia that he would demand of Constantine that would offer Constantia
to him in marriage.79 The issue that arose was that Constantia had sworn a vow of virginity
after she had her leprosy healed by praying at St. Agnes’ tomb in Rome. Gallicanus, unhappy with this, went to Tarsus to fight the Scythians, but on Constantia’s command, John and Paul accompanied him. There, he was surrounded by his enemies, and at the beseeching of John and Paul, he swore a vow to God and became a Christian, and upon seeing a vision in the sky of a boy with a cross, he was led to his successful escape.80 Upon his successful return to
Constantinople, he lived up to his vow and dedicated his life to serving God rather than marry Constantia.
Many years followed, and it was then that Julian became emperor. At this point, Julian had heard that John and Paul had received great wealth from Constantia following her death, which they had used to help the poor and needy.81 Julian demanded that obey him as
they had obeyed Constantine and Constantius, and they replied that since “you have abandoned the religion of all the virtues, we have absolutely renounced your service and would despise ourselves if we obey you!”82 Julian argued that, since his sacrifices to the
pagan gods had resulted in his gaining sole command of the empire, he should be accepted as emperor by all, even if he had to force his subjects to do so.83 After a ten day ultimatum, a
messenger from Julian stated that if they were not willing to worship Jupiter, then they must die.84 Yet once again, they refused to bend to his demands, and so Julian had them
79 “Gallicanus demanded that Constantia be given to him in marriage in return for his leadership in the war, and the chief men of Rome urged the emperor to agree.” de Voragine, p. 336
80 “At this point, John and Paul went to the general and said to him ‘Make a vow to the God of heaven, and you will win a victory greater than any you have won before!’ Gallicanus made his vow, and a youth carrying a cross immediately appeared to him and said: ‘Gird your sword and follow me!’” de Voragine, p. 337
81 “Then he heard that John and Paul were supplying the needs of the poor Christians out of the riches the virgin Constantia had left, and he informed them that as they had served Constantine, it was their duty to be at his service.” de Voragine, pp. 337/8
82 de Voragine, p. 338
83 “…but if you insist in despising me, I shall have to take action, because I must not be despised!” Ibid. 84 “Our master Julian has sent a small gold statue of Jove to you. You are to burn incense to it, otherwise you die, both of you!” Ibid.
murdered secretly while claiming he had sent them into exile, and the two men became martyrs of their faith, buried under the house they were murdered in.85
No purely historical sources prove the veracity of this story, but it was widely
distributed throughout the Middle Ages. Julian, as we will address in his letters, is emphatic about how he has never violently treated Christians in his reign, and yet this narrative tells such a tale. It is particularly notable in how it describes that it was done in secret, and that Julian claimed that he had merely sent them into exile, as he did to other Christians on many occasions. The way this legend is presented lends it a veneer of believability: that Julian could have actually had the men murdered, and potentially many others, while claiming that they were merely exiled instead. However, as stated, no work of history has substantiated such claims, even as they were popularly told throughout the era.
Gallicanus Part II
by
Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim
Hrotsvitha, a tenth-century German nun, is remembered for her collection of six short dramas. One of these plays recounts the same legend that we have heard, but has a much greater focus upon Julian’s characterisation.
From the outset, Julian is clear in his vision that all of the empire’s ills are caused by Christianity. He feels that Christians have been afforded too much freedom, and that they have collectively been acting lawlessly.86 In retaliation, Julian demands that his soldiers
remove them of their wealth, not only to punish them, but to “remind them of these words
85 “He then ordered them to be beheaded secretly, and their bodies to be buried in a grave inside the house; and he circulated the rumour that they had been sent into exile.” Ibid.
86 “These Christians enjoy too much liberty. Their claim that they obey the laws made in the time of Constantine is false.” Hrotsvitha, p. 24
of their Christ: ‘He who does not renounce all that he possesses for my sake cannot be my disciple.’”87 However, when faced with Gallicanus, Julian’s soldiers were inflicted with leprosy
or madness.88
Gallicanus chose to willingly go into exile, but Julian is pleased to learn that the Governor of Alexandria had found him and had him executed.89 John and Paul are, as in the
previous telling, found giving away Constantia’s wealth to the poor and needy. Julian brings them before him, and the refuse to acknowledge him as they had Constantine and
Constantius, as in their case, “the divine grace was with them.”90 Julian finds this notion
absurd, and reveals that he also once believed in their religion, and was even a priest.91 John
and Paul turn their scorn upon him, saying that if he were a priest at one time, he was “the devil’s chaplain”.92 Despite their jibes, Julian offers “to pardon your presumption and raise
you to the highest office of my palace”93, but they tell him “You waste your breath, apostate!
We shall yield to neither blandishments or threats.”94 Despite this statement, Julian leaves
them with a sinister threat: “You shall not make a mock of me.”95
When Julian send Terentianus to compel John and Paul to sacrifice or die, Julian states that the reason they should be killed in secrecy is because “they once held office in this palace.”96 This implies that, if this were the sole reason, Julian would have executed
Christians for not sacrificing to Jupiter publically as standard course, which from the primary
87 Ibid.
88 “But no sooner did one of us step on the threshold than he was straightaway stricken with leprosy or madness.” Hrotsvitha, p. 25
89 “Gallicanus, exiled by your orders, fled to Alexandria. He was arrested in that city by the Governor, Ratianus, and has perished b the sword.” Ibid.
90 Hrotsvitha, p. 27
91 “Absurd! Once I too was fool enough to believe in these meaningless practices. I was a priest of your church.” Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Hrotsvitha, p. 28 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Hrotsvitha, p. 29
source material, we know this would not have been the case. When Terentianus meets John and Paul, they reassert their position, and upon hearing that they were to die, exclaim a final prayer to God that certifies their martyrdom.97
The scene switches to after Julian’s death, and Terentianus finds out that his own son “grinds his teeth, foams at the mouth, and rolls his eyes like a madman.”98 When Terentianus
finds out it was because he had visited the shrine of John and Paul, he recognises that his crime is the reason for his son’s affliction. He defends himself by stating that he was only obeying “the wicked commands of my master,”99 and he realises, with Julian’s death, that
“no enemy of those servants of God can escape punishment.”100 Terentianus, in penance,
concedes to be baptised and formally join the Christian religion, and the play ends happily, with Terentianus’ son overcoming his madness due to his father’s conversion.101
In these examples, we see that Julian is popularly remembered not through the historical accounts of Marcellinus nor the orations of Libanius, but in the context of the lives of the saints. While the legend is of dubious historicity, throughout the Middle Ages, these accounts became representative of what is believed to have been true of Julian’s policy and actions, even if it was not true. The Julian portrayed in these accounts chooses to secretly murder those who would not bow or concede to him, and his death is displayed as a justice upon those he had killed and as the result of his impiety. Throughout the Middle Ages, Julian would be reduced to an opposing force of Christian values, made as a sinister comparison to all that is good and holy. For example, in Notker the Stammerer’s biography on the life of Charlemagne, he would present the long-dead emperor as the one “whom God hated”, and
97 “O Christ, receive our souls, which for Thy sake are being driven from this dwelling of clay!” Ibid. 98 Hrotsvitha, p. 30
99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.
101 “Dry your tears, Terentianus. Here is balm for your anguish. Look! Your son has recovered his health and his reason through the intercession of the martyrs.” Hrotsvitha, p. 31
blame him for the decay of the Franks’ fortunes before the Carolingian Dynasty returned them to health through God’s will.102 Julian would be the symbolic Beelzebub threatening
the prosperity of the Christian kingdoms of Europe by his ancient influence, long after the Roman Empire was a memory and Constantinople fell to the Ottomans. However, as we will see, Julian’s popular memory would transform once again as the Enlightenment began in the 18th Century.
102 “When Julian, whom God hated, was slain in the Persian war by a blow from heaven, not only did the transmarine provinces fall away from the Roman Empire, but also…the Germans and the Franks or Gauls.” Notker, p. 105
The Enlightenment
The period known as the Enlightenment characterises itself as a departure from the Middle Ages by ushering in several revolutions in political, philosophical, and societal thought. The established power systems, such as the unquestioned divine right of kings and the authority of the Catholic Church, were challenged in literature and public protest. Inevitably, in such a period of significant change, history is reassessed in the new context of the times, and the Roman Empire was a popular topic of study. It is in this period that we see a significant transformation in Julian’s public image, after over a millennium of Christian orthodoxy. In this selection, I will analyse the texts of a number of these writers, and see how Julian’s
nachleben developed in a world more ready to question the concept of Christian hegemony.
Voltaire
François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pseudonym Voltaire, was a famous French Enlightenment writer in the years preceding the French Revolution. Known for his polemics against religion and the established ancien régime, he held a great interest in history and wrote thousands of pamphlets and books excoriating the Catholic Church’s misdeeds. It is natural, in this instance, that Voltaire would take an interest in Julian, an emperor who could have changed the course of history by successfully reversing the fortunes of Christianity. In the following sections, I will analyse the content of Voltaire’s writings on Julian, and interpret the portrayal he presents of the man that reflected many of his own ideological traits. His account of Julian come from his Dictionnaire philosophique, a self-evident collection of
philosophical terms. Overall, Julian is mentioned at length in the “Julian” and “Apostate” entries.
To begin with the matter of Julian’s apostasy, Voltaire makes mention that it was still a matter of debate as to whether Julian was truly apostate, or if he ever was a Christian.103 In
spite of this, Voltaire has come to his own conclusions, stating that, referring to Julian’s falsely-espoused Christian beliefs, “It is very probable that he professed that of his uncle Constantius only to avoid assassination.”104 Furthermore, using a logical argument rather
than an evidence-based one, he states that “a man is rarely of the religion of his persecutor, especially when the latter wishes to be ruler of his conscience.”105 Likewise, by stating that
none of his friends or his enemies in any of the primary source texts have said he was ever a true believer in Christian orthodoxy, Voltaire considers the matter closed.106 Voltaire seems
to hold the Constantinian dynasty in special contempt, referring to them as more barbarous and cruel than the worst of Turkish sultans,107 referring to Constantius’ familicide.
As is expected of Voltaire’s ideology, and is reflective of the discourse of the time, he reflects an image of Julian as a hero – stating it plainly: “all the world now acknowledges that the Emperor Julian was a hero and a wise man — a stoic, equal to Marcus Aurelius.”108 While
acknowledging that he has faults, he says he is best remembered for his virtues.109 Voltaire
turns upon Julian’s detractors, saying that since they cannot present an argument to defame
103 “It is still a question among the learned whether the Emperor Julian was really an apostate and whether he was ever truly a Christian.” Voltaire Vol. I, “Apostate”, p. 71
104 Voltaire Vol. I, “Apostate”, pp. 71-2 105 Voltaire Vol. I, “Apostate”, p. 72
106 “In short, neither his friends nor his enemies relate any fact, any words which can prove that he ever believed in Christianity…” Ibid.
107 “The most barbarous of the Turkish sultans have never, I am sorry to say it, surpassed in cruelty or in villainy the Constantine family.” Voltaire Vol. I, “Apostate”, p. 71
108 Voltaire Vol. I, “Apostate”, p. 72
his virtue, they are forced to make him look ridiculous instead, such as Gregory of Nazianzus mocking the size of his beard.110
Voltaire refutes those who call Julian intolerant and guilty of persecution, when he was “the man who sought to extirpate persecution and intolerance”.111 In order to defend
this point, Voltaire refers to one of Julian’s letters which states that he intended to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem, which had been reduced to the sole remaining wall under Titus. Despite using this as an example of toleration, Voltaire then presents practical reasons for Julian allowing for it. He says that “it is very likely that when Julian resolved to carry the war into Persia he wanted money. It is also very likely that the Jews gave him some for
permission to rebuild their temple…”112 While this could be used to argue that Julian was
tolerant of the Jews, it fails to prove that he was tolerant of Christians.
Voltaire acknowledges the long history of defamation that Julian received following his death, saying that “the age of sound criticism arrives; and at the end of fourteen hundred years, enlightened men revise the cause which had been decided by ignorance.”113 Voltaire’s
explanation for this is presented in the form of a comparison between Constantine and Julian, with Constantine having imbrued himself “in the blood of all his relations, and is lulled to sleep in all the effeminacy of luxury; but he is a Christian — he is canonized.”114
Julian, on the other hand, is “sober, chaste, disinterested, brave, and clement; but he is not a Christian — he has long been considered a monster.”115
110 “His detractors are reduced to the miserable expedient of striving to make him appear ridiculous. One historian, on the authority of St. Gregory Nazianzen, reproaches him with having worn too large a beard.” Ibid. 111 Ibid.
112 Ibid.
113 Voltaire Vol. II, “Julian Section I”, p. 78 114 Ibid.
Voltaire says he has read Julian’s letters, memorials, records, and all he can find on Julian, and, while acknowledging that he was “not partial to Christianity”116 (a rather
generous understatement), “he was somewhat excusable in hating a sect stained with the blood of all his family,” failing to mention that they were Christians also. He states that he was highly tolerant of them, making use of an example where Julian allows ten Christians who were conspiring to assassinate him to go free, rather than seeking vengeance upon them.117 His eventual death, Voltaire argues, was not at the cause of divine vengeance. He
says that “Julian died the noblest of deaths, in the pursuit of his enemies, after many victories.”118 In comparison, his successor Jovian, who was a Christian, survived for a very
short reign, and died in disgrace regardless of his faith.119 To Voltaire, Julian’s death was
something to be mourned, and those who defame Julian’s memory are dishonest to the facts, seeking only to gain favour within their own Christian communities by degrading the character of a long-dead emperor. Voltaire speaks highly in memory of Libanius, who, in his orations, “celebrated the brave and clement Julian in the presence of Theodosius, the wholesale murderer of the Thessalonians; but Le Beau and La Bletterie fear to praise him in the hearing of their own puny parish officers,”120 indicating their subservience to their
religion.
Voltaire voices the sentiment that all the antitheist Enlightenment writers possess when engaging on the topic of Julian: “If he had lived only ten years longer, there is great probability that he would have given a different form to Europe from that which it bears at
116 Ibid.
117 “Ten Christians conspiring against his life, he detects and he pardons them. How extraordinary a man! What dastardly fanatics must those be who attempt to throw disgrace on his memory!” Voltaire Vol. II, “Julian Section I”, p. 79
118 Voltaire Vol. II, “Julian Section I”, p. 80
119 “Jovian, who succeeded him, reigned a much shorter time than he did, and reigned in disgrace.” Ibid. 120 Ibid.
present.”121 He says that he was hated by his Christian contemporaries for humiliating
them,122 and that the leaders of Christian nations that followed the decline of Roman
authority and throughout the Middle Ages “rendered his name execrable” for threatening the religious bedrock of their new societies.123 He derides the title of “Apostate”, which Julian
still holds in the present day in many sources, as an insult removed from the context of history. “Not more than a hundred years ago”, he argues in the vein of Julian himself, “the man that would not have treated him as an apostate would himself have been treated as an atheist.”124 Voltaire strikes at the integrity of the Church Fathers as well, for giving way to
fanciful stories that serve to demonise Julian’s memory with falsities. “One of them says that he took a barbarous vengeance on Antioch and filled it with blood. How could a fact so public and atrocious escape the knowledge of all other historians?”125 Beyond the records of
the Church Fathers, there is no historical evidence to prove any such massacre took place. While Julian writes that he left the city in disgust and had no desire to return, he made no mention of any military action against the populace.
In conclusion, Voltaire derides the portrayals of Julian that the Church Fathers wrote of him, and also derides his own contemporaries for repeating them. He acknowledges that pagan writers wrote fanciful prophecies in their histories, as we have seen, but argues that those written by Christian writers were always defamatory and libellous.126 Voltaire even
goes as far as to apologise for mentioning the names of these contemporary anti-Julians, but
121 Voltaire Vol. II, “Julian Section II”, p. 80
122 “The Christian priests, who were his contemporaries, accuse him of almost every crime, because he had committed what in their eyes was the greatest of all — he had lowered and humiliated them.” Ibid.
123 The Christian religion depended upon his life; the efforts which he made for its destruction rendered his name execrable to the nations who have embraced it.” Ibid.
124 Ibid.
125 Voltaire Vol. II, “Julian Section II”, p. 81
126 “Both Christians and Pagans equally, circulated fables concerning Julian; but the fables of the Christians, who were his enemies, were filled with calumny.” Voltaire Vol. II, “Julian Section II”, p. 82
excuses himself by saying that “after having trampled to death serpents, we shall probably be excused for crushing fleas.”127
Edward Gibbon
Edward Gibbon was an MP of the British Empire during the Eighteenth Century, and a prominent historian most famous for his six volume work, The History of the Decline and Fall
of the Roman Empire. Covering the history of Rome from 98CE through past the Ottoman
invasion of Constantinople, the work covers the entire reign of Julian as well as those of his predecessors and successors. In its time, The Decline and Fall was controversial for its open criticisms of the Catholic Church, the effect of which incited such a furore that exceeded his own expectations, but were borne as an attempt to remove his work from the established Christian narrative of the flow of history which had solidified over the previous thousand years.
This work is the turning point from which the popular narrative arose, and continues today, that presents Julian as a virtuous defender of humanist virtue. The language used by Gibbon to describe Julian had not been used since Libanius, a personal friend of Julian, had mourned for his death. Gibbon’s own admirable reliance on primary sources inevitably means that he could have been moved by these orations, as his own retelling of Julian’s life is excessive in its adoration. Yet, it remains the work of an historian, in that, while often betraying his own fondness for Julian, much of the content of the book remains objective towards the course of events, and he makes frequent use of citations to prove relevant points.
Gibbons describes Julian’s learning as not only benefitting himself, but the entire Roman world by extension. Referring to his time undergoing his education in Athens, Gibbons described that some of his associates, upon meeting Julian, would have been sceptical of him considering his background in the Constantinian dynasty.128 Despite this, he
claims that he not only became friends with a great many of them,129 but that the “general
prepossession in favour of his virtues and talents” would be “soon diffused over the Roman world,”130 which is a very dramatic and questionable statement, considering the limited
success of Julian’s reign.
Unlike the primary source texts of Libanius and Marcellinus, who vow that he held no such pride publically, Gibbon makes note of Julian’s proud nature as he undertakes his campaigns as Caesar against the Alemanni and the Franks. He says that Julian desired to emulate Julius Caesar in his own written account of his campaigns against the tribes of Gaul.131 In evidence of this, Gibbon writes that “with conscious pride,” Julian would speak of
“the manner in which he twice passed the Rhine” so that “before he assumed the title of Augustus, he had carried the Roman Eagles beyond that great river in three successful expeditions.”132
Beyond his success at war, Gibbon is pleased to relay the content of Julian’s own letters when he wintered between conquests, taking on the role of a magistrate rather than a warlord. In the case he presents, Julian writes about his refutation of “a mandate for the
128 “Some of his fellow-students might perhaps examine his behaviour with an eye of prejudice and aversion…” Gibbon Vol. III, Chapter XIX, p. 236
129 “ The gentleness and affability of manners, which his temper suggested and his situation imposed, insensibly engaged the affections of the strangers, as well as citizens, with whom he conversed.” Ibid. 130 Ibid.
131 “He aspired to emulate the glory of the first and most illustrious of the emperors; after whose example he composed his own commentaries of the Gallic war.” Gibbon Vol. III, Chapter XIX, p. 271
levy of an extraordinary tax,”133 which he considers unjust because of the corruption of an
unempathetic government.134 Gibbon takes the content of Julian’s letter a face-value,
unquestionably accepting Julian’s assessment of the event. Gibbon describes him as a “young hero” in this scenario, says that he “was not permitted to reform the vices of the government; but he had courage to alleviate or to pity the distress of the people.”135
As Constantius is hearing of Julian’s success in Gaul, Gibbon makes mention of the members of his court, saying that rather than “depreciating the merits of Julian, they acknowledged, and even exaggerated, his popular fame, superior talents, and important services.”136 This contradicts Gregory’s telling of the same events, as he was coming to the
defence of Constantius, while Gibbon speaks to his “sentiments of hatred and envy”137
towards Julian’s virtues.
Gibbon offers a very detailed account of Julian’s declaration as Augustus, expressing the great extents he went through to isolate himself from his disloyal troops. He describes that it was in a drunken reverie that the soldiers charged the imperial palace, and that they had to break down the doors and force Julian to the tribunal to hear their demands; and demands they were, for he says that he failed to yield “till he had been repeatedly assured that, if he wished to live, he must consent to reign.”138 While the primary sources are divided
on the extent to which Julian was coerced into becoming Augustus, with Libanius stating that it was his unspoken desire, Gibbon chooses to relay Marcellinus’ account that firmly places Julian as the reluctant hero of his narrative; to be a man that had power thrust upon
133 Gibbon Vol. III, Chapter XIX, p. 276
134 “Could I abandon the unhappy subjects entrusted to my care? Was I not called upon to defend them from the repeated injuries of these unfeeling robbers?” Ibid.
135 Gibbon Vol. III, Chapter XIX, pp. 276-7 136 Gibbon Vol. IV, Chapter XXII, pp.2-3 137 Gibbon Vol. IV, Chapter XXII, p. 3 138 Gibbon Vol. IV, Chapter XXII, p. 9
