Introduction

Flavius Claudius Julianus,1 son of Julius Constantius and nephew of the Emperor Constantine, was born at Constantinople in 331 a.d. His father, eldest brother, and cousins were slain in the massacre by which Constantius, Constantine II., and Constans secured the empire for themselves on the death of their father Constantine in 337. Julian and his elder brother Gallus spent a precarious childhood and youth, of which six years were passed in close confinement in the remote castle of Macellum in Cappadocia, and their position was hardly more secure when, in 350, Gallus was elevated to the Caesarship by Constantius, who, after the violent deaths of his two brothers, was now sole ruler of the empire. But Julian was allowed to pursue his favourite studies in Greek literature and philosophy, partly at Nicomedia and Athens, partly in the cities [pg viii] of Asia Minor, and he was deeply influenced by Maximus of Ephesus, the occult philosopher, Libanius of Nicomedia, the fashionable sophist, and Themistius the Aristotelian commentator, the only

genuine philosopher among the sophists of the fourth century a.d.

When the excesses of the revolutionary Gallus ended in his death at the hands of Constantius, Julian, an awkward and retiring student, was summoned to the court at Milan, where he was protected by the Empress Eusebia from the suspicions of Constantius and the intrigues of hostile courtiers. Constantius had no heir to continue the dynasty of the Constantii. He therefore raised Julian to the Caesarship in 355, gave him his sister Helena in marriage, and dispatched him to Gaul to pacify the Gallic provinces. To the surprise of all, Julian in four successive campaigns against the Franks and the Alemanis proved himself a good soldier and a popular general. His Commentaries on these campaigns are praised by Eunapius2 and Libanius,3 but are not now extant. In 357-358 Constantius, who was occupied by wars against the Quadi and the Sarmatians, and threatened with a renewal of hostilities by the Persian king Sapor, ordered Julian, [pg ix] who was then at Paris, to send to his aid the best of the Gallic legions. Julian would have obeyed, but

his troops, unwilling to take service in the East, mutinied and proclaimed him Emperor (359 a.d.). Julian issued manifestoes justifying his conduct to the Senates of Rome and Athens and to the Spartans and Corinthians, a characteristic anachronism, since their opinion no longer had any weight. It was not till 361 that he began his march eastward to encounter the army of Constantius. His troops, though seasoned and devoted, were in numbers no match for the legions of his cousin. But the latter, while marching through Cilicia to oppose his advance, died suddenly of a fever near Tarsus, and Julian, now in his thirtieth year, succeeded peacefully to the throne and made a triumphal entry into Constantinople in December, 361.

The eunuchs and courtiers who had surrounded Constantius were replaced by sophists and philosophers, and in the next six months Julian set on foot numerous economic and administrative reforms. He had long been secretly devoted to the Pagan religion, and he at once proclaimed the restoration of the Pagan gods and the temple worship. Christianity he tolerated, and in his brief reign of sixteen months the Christians were not actively persecuted. His [pg x] treatise Against the Christians, which survives only in fragments, was an explanation of his apostasy. The epithet “Apostate” was bestowed on him by the Christian Fathers. Meanwhile he was preparing—first at Constantinople then at Antioch, where he wrote the Misopogon, a satire on the luxury and frivolity of the inhabitants—for a campaign against Sapor, a task which he had inherited from Constantius. In March, 362 he left Antioch and crossed the Euphrates, visited Carrhae, memorable for the defeat of Crassus, then crossed the Tigris, and, after burning his fleet, retired northwards towards Armenia. On the march he fought an

indecisive battle with the Persians at Maranga, and in a skirmish with the retreating enemy he was mortally wounded by a javelin (January 26th, 363). His body was carried to Tarsus by his successor the Emperor Jovian, and was probably removed later to Constantinople. The legend that as he died he exclaimed: Γαλιλαῖε νενίκηκας, “Thou hast conquered, O Galilæan!” appears first in the Christian historian Theodoret in the fifth century. Julian was the last male descendant of the famous dynasty founded by Constantius Chlorus.

In spite of his military achievements, he was, first of all, a student. Even on his campaigns he took his [pg xi] books with him, and several of his extant works were composed in camp. He had been trained, according to the fashion of his times, in rhetorical studies by professional sophists such as Libanius, and he has all the mannerisms of a fourth century sophist. It was the sophistic etiquette to avoid the direct use of names, and Julian never names the usurpers Magnentius, Silvanus, and Vetranio, whose suppression by Constantius he describes in his two first Orations, regularly refers to Sapor as “the barbarian,” and rather than name Mardonius, his tutor, calls him “a certain Scythian who had the same name as the man who persuaded Xerxes to invade Hellas.”4 He wrote the literary Greek of the fourth century a.d. which imitates the classical style, though barbarisms and late constructions are never entirely avoided. His pages are crowded with echoes of Homer, Demosthenes, Plato, and Isocrates, and his style is interwoven with

half verses, phrases, and whole sentences taken without acknowledgment from the Greek masterpieces. It is certain that, like other sophists, he wished his readers to recognise these echoes, and therefore his source is always classical, so that where he seems to imitate Dio Chrysostom or Themistius, both go back to a common source, which [pg xii] Julian had in mind. Another sophistic element in his style is the use of commonplaces, literary allusions that had passed into the sophistic language and can be found in all the writers of reminiscence Greek in his day. He himself derides this practice5 but he cannot resist dragging in the well-worn references to Cyrus, Darius, and Alexander, to the nepenthe poured out by Helen in the Odyssey, to the defiance of nature by Xerxes, or the refusal of Socrates to admit the happiness of the Great King. Julian wished to make Neo-Platonism the philosophy of his revived Hellenism, but he belonged to the younger or Syrian branch of the school, of which Iamblichus was the real founder, and he only

once mentions Plotinus. Iamblichus he ranked with Plato and paid him a fanatical devotion. His philosophical writing, especially in the two prose Hymns, is obscure, partly because his theories are only vaguely realised, partly because he reproduces the obscurity of his model, Iamblichus. In satire and narrative he can be clear and straightforward.

Manuscripts

The Vossianus (V), Leyden, 13th or 14th cent. (contains also the Letters of Libanius), is the only reliable MS. of Julian, and was once complete except for a few Letters. Where pages are lost from V a group of inferior MSS. are used, Marcianus 366 (M), 251 (Mb), both 15th cent., five Monacenses (at Munich), and several Parisini (at Paris). Cobet's contributions to the text are in Mnemosyne 8, 9, 10 (old series 1859-1861) and 10, 11 (new series 1882-1883). A. Papadoulos Kerameus published in Rheinisches Museum, 1887, six new Letters discovered on the island of Chalcis.

Editions

Misopogon and Letters (with Latin version) Martin, Paris, 1566. Martin and Cantoclarus, Paris, 1583. Petau (Petavius) Paris, 1630. Spanheim, Leipzig, 1696. Oration I, Schaefer, Leipzig, 1802 (with Latin version and Wyttenbach's Critical Epistle to Ruhnken). Hertlein, Leipzig (Teubner), 1875-1876.6 Against the Christians, Neumann, Leipzig, 1880. Letters: Heyler, Mainz, 1828. Westermann, Leipzig, 1854.

Literature

La Vie de l'Empereur Julien, Abbé de la Bleterie, Paris, 1735. Strauss, Der Romantiker auf dem Throne der Caesaren, Mannheim, 1847. Mücke Julian's Leben und Schriften, Gotha, 1868. Naville, Julien l'Apostat, Neufchâtel, 1877. Schwartz, De vita et scriptis Juliani, Bonn, 1888. Gildersleeve Julian in Essays and Studies, Baltimore, 1890. Gardner, Julian, New York, 1895. France (W. C. Wright), Julian's Relation to Neo-Platonism [pg xiv]and the New Sophistic, London, 1896. Negri, L'Imperatore Giuliano, Milan, 1902 (translated by Letta-Visconti-Arese, London, 1906). Bidez and Cumont, Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des lettres de Julien, Brussels, 1898. Asmus, Julian und Dio Chrysostomus, Tauberbischofsheim, 1895. Brambs, Studien, Eichstätt, 1897. Allard, Julien l'Apostat, Paris, 1903. Cumont, Sur l'authenticité de quelques lettres de Julien, Gaud, 1889.

Translations

Latin: Misopogon and Letters, Martin in edition. Oration I, Schaefer in edition. Letters, Heyler in edition. French: Tourlet, Paris, 3 vols. 1821. Traduction de quelques Ouvrages de l'Empereur Julien, Abbé de la Bleterie, Paris, 1748. Caesars, Spanheim, Paris, 1683. German: Against the Christians, Neumann, Leipzig, 1880. English: Select Works by Duncombe, London, 1784 (contains also some translations of Libanius).

Bibliographical Addendum (1980)

J. Bidez: La tradition manuscrite et les éditions des discours de Julien (1929). J. Bidez: La vie de l'empereur Julien (1930). G. W. Bowersock: Julian the Apostate, Cambridge, Mass. (1978). R. Browning: The Emperor Julian (1975). G. Gigli: Giuliano l'Apostata (1960). W. E. Kaegi: “Research on Julian, 1945-1964,” CW 58 (1965) 229ff. G. Ricciotti: Julian the Apostate, trans. M. J. Costelloe (1960).

Oration I

[Transcriber's Note: The original book had pages with Greek on the left page and the corresponding English translation on the facing right page. In this e-book, each Greek paragraph will be immediately followed by the English translation paragraph, surrounded in parentheses. The Greek text contains markings such as [3] and [B]; they are section and sub-section markings that in the original book were in the right margin. These are different from numbers within parentheses such as (10), which are used as footnote references in some e-book formats.]

ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΟΥ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ ΕΓΚΩΜΙΟΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΑ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΟΝ

(PANEGYRIC IN HONOUR OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS)

Πάλαι με προθυμούμενον, ὦ μέγιστε βασιλεῦ, τὴν σὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ πράξεις ὑμνῆσαι καὶ τοὺς πολέμους ἀπαριθμήσασθαι, καὶ τὰς τυραννίδας ὅπως ἀνῄιρηκας, τῆς μὲν λόγῳ καὶ πειθοῖ τοὺς δορυφόρους ἀποστήσας, τῆς δὲ τοῖς ὅπλοις κρατήσας, τὸ μέγεθος εἶργε τῶν πράξεων, οὐ τὸ βραχὺ λειφθῆναι τῷ λόγῳ τῶν ἔργων δεινὸν κρίνοντα, ἀλλὰ τὸ παντελῶς τῆς ὑποθέσεως διαμαρτεῖν δόξαι. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ περὶ τοὺς πολιτικοῦς ἀγῶνας καὶ τὴν ποίησιν διατρίβουσιν οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν εἰ ῥᾳδίως ἔξεστιν ἐγχειρεῖν τοῖς ἐπαίνοις τῶν σοι πραχθέντων· [2] περίεστι γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ

λέγειν μελέτης καὶ τῆς πρὸς τὰς ἐπιδείξεις συνηθείας τὸ θαρσεῖν ἐν δίκῃ. ὅσοι δὸ τοῦ μὲν τοιούτου μέρους κατωλιγώρησαν, ὥρμησαν δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἕτερον παιδείας εἶδος καὶ λόγων ξυγγραφὴν οὐ δήμῳ κεχαρισμένην οὐδ᾽ ἐς θέατρα παντοδαπὰ τολμῶσαν ἀποδύεσθαι, πρὸς τὰς ἐπιδείξεις ἔχοιεν ἂν εἰκότως εὐλαβεστέρως. ἔστι γὰρ οὐκ ἄδηλον τοῦθ᾽ ὅτι [B] τοῦς μὲν ποιηταῖς Μοῦσαι καὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπιπνεομένους τὴν ποίησιν γράφειν ἄφθονον [pg 006] παρέχει τὴν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ πλάσματος· τοῖς ῥήτορσι δὲ ἡ τέχνη τὴν ἴσην παρέσχεν ἄδειαν, τὸ μὲν πλάττειν

ἀφελομένη, τὸ δὲ κολακεύειν οὐδαμῶς ἀπαγορεύσασα, οὐδὲ αἰσχύνην ὁμολογουμένην τῷ λέγοντι τὸ ψευδῶς7 ἐπαινεῖν τοὺς οὐκ ἀξίους ἐπαίνου κρίνασα. ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἐπειδὰν καινόν τινα μῦθον καὶ μηδέπω τοῖς πρόσθεν ἐπινοηθέντα φέρωσιν αὐτοὶ ξυνθέντες, [C] τῷ ξένῳ τοὺς ἀκούοντας ψυχαγωγήσαντες πλέον θαυμάζονται· οἱ δὲ τῆς τέχνης ἀπολαῦσαί φασιν ἐν τῷ δύνασθαι περὶ τῶν μικρῶν μειζόνως διελθεῖν, καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ἀφελεῖν τῶν ἔργων τῷ λόγῳ, καὶ ὄλως ἀντιτάττειν τῇ τῶν πραγμάτων φύσει τὴν δύναμιν8 τῶν λόγων.

(I have long desired, most mighty Emperor, to sing the praises of your valour and achievements, to recount your campaigns, and to tell how you suppressed the tyrannies; how your persuasive eloquence drew away one usurper's9 bodyguard; how you overcame another10 by force of arms. But the vast scale of your exploits deterred me, because what I had to dread was not that my words would fall somewhat short of your achievements, but that I should prove wholly unequal to my theme. That men versed in political debate, or poets, should find it easy to compose a panegyric on your career is not at all surprising. Their practice in speaking, their habit of declaiming in public supplies them abundantly with a well-warranted confidence. But those who have neglected this field and chosen another branch of literary study which devotes itself to a form of composition little adapted to win popular favour and that has not the hardihood to exhibit itself in its nakedness in every theatre, no matter what, would naturally hesitate to make speeches of the epideictic sort. As for the poets,

their Muse, and the general belief that it is she who inspires their verse, obviously gives them unlimited license to invent. To rhetoricians the art of rhetoric allows just as much freedom; fiction is denied them, but flattery is by no means forbidden, nor is it counted a disgrace to the orator that the object of his panegyric should not deserve it. Poets who compose and publish some legend that no one had thought of before increase their reputation, because an audience is entertained by the mere fact of novelty. Orators, again, assert11 that the advantage of their art is that it can treat a slight theme in the grand manner, and again, by the use of mere words, strip the greatness from deeds, and, in short, marshall the power of words against that of facts.)

Ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ταύτης ἐμαυτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἐν χρείᾳ τῆς τέχνης, ἦγον ἂν τὴν προσήκουσαν ἡσυχίαν τοῖς ἀμελετήτως ἔχουσι τῶν τοιούτων λόγων, [D] παραχωρῶν τῶν σῶν ἐγκωμίων ἐκείνοις, ὧν μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἐμνήσθην. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἅπαν τοὐναντίον ὁ παρὼν ἀπαιτεῖ λόγος τῶν πραγμάτων ἁπλῆν διήγησιν οὐδενὸς ἐπεισάκτου κόσμου δεομένην, ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ προσήκειν, τοῦ12 ἀξίως διηγήσασθαι τῶν ἔργων ἀνεφίκτου καὶ τοῖς προλαβοῦσιν13 ἤδη φανέντος. ἅπαντες γὰρ σχεδὸν οἱ [3] περὶ παιδείαν διατρίβοντες σε14 ἐν μέτρῳ καὶ καταλογάδην ὑμνοῦσιν, οἱ μὲν ἅπαντα περιλαβεῖν ἐν βραχεῖ

τολμῶντες, οἱ δὲ μέρεσιν αὑτοὺς ἐπιδόντες τῶν πράξεων ἀρκεῖν ᾠήθησαν, εἰ τούτων τῆς ἀξίας μὴ διαμάρτοιεν. ἄξιον δὲ ἄγασθαι τὴν προθυμίαν τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἁπάντων, ὅσοι τῶν σῶν ἐπαίνων ἥψαντο. οἱ μὲν γάρ, ὅπως μηδὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου τῶν σοι πραχθέντων ἀμαυρωθείη, τὸν μέγιστον ὑποδῦναι πόνον ἐτόλμησαν, οἱ δέ, ὅτι τοῦ παντὸς διαμαρτήσειν ἤλπιζον, τὴν αὑτῶν γνώμην ἐν μέρει προύφηναν, [B] ἄμεινον τοῦ τῆς σιωπῆς ἀκινδύνου γέρως κρίναντες κατὰ δύναμίν σοι τῶν οἰκείων πόνων ἀπάρξασθαι.

(If, however, I had seen that on this occasion I should need their art, I should have maintained the silence that befits those who have had no practice in such forms of composition, and should leave your praises to be told by those whom I just now mentioned. Since, on the contrary, the speech I am to make calls for a plain narrative of the facts and needs no adventitious ornament, I thought that even I was not unfit, seeing that my predecessors had already shown that it was beyond them to produce a record worthy of your achievements. For almost all who devote themselves to literature attempt to sing your praises in verse or prose; some of them venture to cover your whole career in a brief narrative, while others devote themselves to a part only, and think that if they succeed in doing justice to that part they have proved themselves equal to the task.)

Εἰ μὲν οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς εἷς ὢν ἐτύγχανον τῶν τοὺς ἐπιδεικτικοὺς ἀγαπώντων λόγους, ἐχρῆν ἐντεῦθεν ἄρχεσθαι τῆς ὑποθέσεως, τὴν ἴσην εὔνοιαν ἀπαιτήσαντα τῆς ὑπαρχούσης ἤδη σοι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ δεηθέντα τῶν λόγων ἀκροατὴν εὐμενῆ γενέσθαι, οὐχὶ δὲ ἀκριβῆ καὶ ἀπαραίτητον κριτὴν καταστῆναι. [C] ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐν ἄλλοις μαθήμασι τραφέντες καὶ παιδευθέντες, καθάπερ ἐπιτηδεύμασι καὶ νόμοις, ἀλλοτρίων κατατολμᾶν ἔργων δοκοῦμεν οὐκ ὀρθῶς, μικρά μοι δοκεῖ χρῆναι καὶ περὶ τούτων δηλῶσαι, οἰκειοτέραν ἀρχὴν προθέντα τοῦ λόγου.