New and Old Letter Types in the Corpus of Julian the Apostate ( 361–363 )
-
Bronwen Neil
Abstract
The emperor Julian’s career as a letter writer began long before his brief term as sole ruler of the united Roman empire from 361 to 363. In the surviving collection of 82 letters, only 73 were deemed authentic by their editor Emily Wilmer Cave Wright in the 1923 Loeb edition. The remaining nine she deemed apocryphal. This paper looks at two methodological issues associated with Julian’s letter collections. What grounds should the modern scholar use to discern authentic from forged letters; and were Julian’s letters of the same types as Christian letters of Late Antiquity or were they closer to Classical models? A third question arises from a survey of Julian’s epistolary addressees. These reveal a diverse network of people of various levels of status, including Basil, bishop of Caesarea, the Jews of Alexandria, and a priestess of Demeter and Cybele. How does this diversity compare with the correspondence of ( Christian ) emperors and bishops of the fourth century? I aim to answer these questions by considering those letter types in Julian’s letter corpus that were new in the fourth century, such as letters of recommendation for travellers and letters to religious groups, and others more familiar, that is, letters of friendship and letters of consolation. The overarching hypothesis is that Julian was inspired to write and have collected his public and personal letters in the same way as the Christian bishops whom he knew and with whom he corresponded, notably Bishop Basil of Caesarea.
1. Introduction
Flavius Claudius Julianus, son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine I, was born in 331/332 in Constantinople and became emperor in November 361 [1]. He had already been proclaimed in early 360, having been acclaimed Caesar of the Western provinces in Milan 355. He was crowned on the death of Constantius II and ruled as sole emperor for three years before his death in battle against the Persians in Ctesiphon, on 26/27 June 363. Julian’s career as a letter writer probably began long before his brief term as sole ruler but his first surviving letter dates to 359. In his early twenties, Julian received the usual philosophical training, studying philosophy at Pergamon c. 350, a famous centre of learning in Asia Minor and renowned for its library, and in Athens [2]. Apart from 78 letters, including some of dubious attribution, he composed various orations, a tract against the Galileans or Christians, and a satire known as ‘The Caesars’. Other important sources on his life and writings include the panegyric delivered by Libanius on Julian’s death [3], Eunapius of Sardis’ ‘Lives of the Philosophers’, the contemporary historical account of Ammianus Marcellinus ( c. 330–395 ), and the later ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Sozomen.
Two methodological issues associated with Julian’s letter collections stand out as having received insufficient attention in literature [4]. First, were Julian’s letters of the same types as Christian letters of late antiquity or were they closer to Classical models? A second question arises from a survey of Julian’s letter collection. These reveal a diverse network of people of various levels of status, including bishops, Jews, and priestesses. How much diversity of addressee do Julian’s letters display when considered alongside those of other ( Christian ) emperors and bishops of the fourth century? Finally, what grounds should the modern scholar use to discern authentic from forged letters? This paper aims to answer these questions by considering letter types that were new in the fourth century, such as letters of recommendation for travellers and letters to religious groups, and others that were not, such as letters of friendship and letters of consolation. My overarching hypothesis is that Julian was inspired by the combination of official and personal letters characteristic of Christian bishops whom he knew and with whom he corresponded and that his letter collections look much more like a Christian bishop’s correspondence than a typical Roman emperor’s.
2. The Julianic Epistolary Corpus
Julian’s letters have been transmitted in smaller groups from the first edition known as the Aldine, published in 1499 and containing only 48 letters. Rudolf Hercher’s ( 1873 ) edition contained 78 letters [5]. The edition of Julian’s letters and fragments in Emily Wilmer Cave Wright’s third volume of her ‘Works of Julian’ ( 1923 ) gathered 83 letters, arranged chronologically, plus the longer ‘Letter to Themistius’ and ‘Letter to the Athenians’, and several fragments [6]. Only 73 out of 83 were deemed authentic; the remaining nine she deemed apocryphal. A new edition, also chronologically arranged, was made by Joseph Bidez in 1928 and also included 78 letters and seven fragments, omitting the letters to Iamblichus that he and François Cumont had deemed forgeries [7].
In their forthcoming study of the letter collection of Julian, Andrew Morrison and Roy Gibson observe that the standard 43 letters are collected into a single group and read as one collection, although the term ‘collection’ is somewhat misleading since the manuscripts transmit micro-collections of Julian’s letters [8]. The micro-collections present selections of Julian’s letters in various combinations, which often overlap with each other in part.
The largest collection is transmitted by Laurentianus pl. 58.16 ( 15th c. ), which contains 43 letters [9]. The number of letters attributed to Julian has grown over time, as more manuscripts were discovered: Hertlein’s ( 1875 ) edition contained 79 letters. The standard edition by Bidez and Cumont ( 1922 ) numbers 207 letters, consisting of 85 plus the mostly fragmentary letters excerpted from other sources, such as the Byzantine historians Socrates, Sozomen, the philosopher John Lydus and the ‘Suda’, and were chosen to illustrate the points in the agenda of their Byzantine authors.
In some manuscripts – for example, Heidelbergensis Palatinus graecus 356 fols. 56r–58v, a thirteenth-century micro-collection of the correspondence between Julian, Basil and Libanius – the three pairs of letters were included consecutively “without any intervals or titles.” [10] These were considered suitable for a letter-writing manual for those wishing to learn the epistolary art. Collated under the miscellaneous heading Epistolai diaphoroi ( ‘diverse letters’ ), they were selected to reflect common themes, with carefully chosen and sometimes reworked excerpts.
Parisinus graecus 2755 contains the same three pairs of letters: Julian to Basil ( Ep. 26 Wright, Ep. 75 Bidez ) and Basil’s reply; Julian to Libanius, in which Julian requested a copy of a speech ( Ep. 52 Wright, Ep. 3 Bidez ) and received it with Libanius’ reply ( Libanius, Ep. 760 Foerster ), where he reports that he has sent the oration back by Priscus’ hand [11]; and finally, Basil to Libanius and his reply. This selection shows the close relationships between the three literary figures. The first two pairs are also contained in Ambrosianus B4 sup., where the next letter ( Ep. 14 ) is also addressed to Libanius, referring to the speech that Libanius had sent to Julian ( as reported in Libanius, Ep. 760 Foerster ).
The two main manuscript groups identified by Morrison and Gibson are those headed by Vossianus 77 ( 12th c. ) and Ambrosianus B4 sup. ( 10th c. ). Morrison and Gibson comment that thematic arrangement is evident in Vossianus 77, where one group ( six letters ) concerns the administration of Egypt [12], while another ( Epp. 14–19 ) focuses on literary or philosophical themes and praises the rhetorical ability of the addressee. More interesting is the case of Ambrosianus B4 sup., which seems intended to convey a sense of Julian’s life and religious beliefs ( Epp. 64 and 13 ). Letters 65, 178 and 157 bring together extracts from historians with excerpts from Julian’s longer letters. Ambrosiansus B4 sup. has been identified as an ‘educational token’ by Michael Grünbart, meaning a model used to teach themes of letter-writing, sometimes in improved or atticised Greek, to students of middle and late Byzantine letters [13]. We might distinguish the pedagogical function intended by those who collected Julian’s letters for imitation by students, and Julian’s pedagogical purposes, which overlap with his pastoral concerns, discussed below [14].
3. Letter types
Julian’s letters shared some of the same types as Christian letters of late antiquity but some examples are closer to Classical models. Julian’s letter corpus contains friendship and consolation letters that were common to Christians and non-Christians, but they also contain types that no Roman emperor before him would have contemplated, for example, letters to religious groups such as the Jews, Christians of Alexandria, and individual letters to priestesses. We start our analysis of the letter types with friendship letters of various kinds, then proceed to letters of recommendation, imperial letters, and religious instruction.
3.1 Friendship Letters
Three friendship ideals have been identified for the Classical era: friendships for pleasure, for mutual advantage and for increasing virtue ( virtue friends are those who help each other avoid error, as Aristotle put it ). All three types are based on good-will and reciprocity and all three are found in Julian’s corpus, as we will see below. In the Classical period, friendship letters were a forum for discussing the nature of love or friendship, while the Christian friendship letter was an extension of a Classical letter type, expressing or strengthening ties with friends or known clients and also offering consolation [15].
We will see below that the Aristotelian division of friendship ideals ( pure friendship, mutual advantage and virtue friendship ) did not apply to Julian’s epistolary relationships. This may be partly because Julian was Caesar or Caesar-in-waiting, not just an ordinary philosopher or soldier. Most of Julian’s friends are virtue friends, like the priestess Theodora, the bishop Basil, and the orator Libanius, who are also expected to toe the line.
3.1.1 Virtue Friends
Julian and his circle of philosophical companions from his sojourn in Apamea held great reverence for the influential teacher of their own master Maximos of Ephesus. It is not surprising therefore that Iamblichus ( d. 325 CE ) is the addressee of a group of spurious letters by an anonymous disciple and preserved among Julian’s genuine letters [16]. Libanius was a fellow pupil of Iamblichus, and reports on his sojourn in Apamea [17]. Libanius, a prolific letter-writer, addressed sixteen surviving letters to Julian and an epitaph on the occasion of Julian’s death [18]. They were both in Antioch when Julian wrote to Libanius demanding his counsel, as a debt that Libanius owed to him ( Ep. 52; see also Ep. 53 ).
Julian was also taught by Maximus of Ephesus and Priscus, to whom he directed several letters [19]. Maximus featured in Eunapius’s ‘Lives of the Sophists and Philosophers’ 5 [20], as Julian did in Eunapius’s lost ‘History’, of which only fragments survived [21]. He visited Julian in Gaul, was summoned to Constantinople not long after Julian’s accession, and accompanied him to Persia. Maximus was a philosopher in the tradition of Iamblichus and a famous theurgist. Other fellow students of Neoplatonism were Eumenius and Pharianus, recipients of Letter 3, and the physician Oribasius, the recipient of Letter 4 from Paris in 358/359, to whom he reported a vision which was a premonition of his ambitions being realised when Constantius died in November 361.
Six letters by an anonymous Syrian sophist, whose correspondence with Iamblichus was preserved among the genuine letters of the emperor Julian ( Epp. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 ), according to Cave Wright, Epp. 74–83, with the possible exception of 81, are “certainly not by Julian.” [22] In regard to these six letters, they cannot be by Julian because Iamblichus is known to have died before Julian was born. Iamblichus ( 245–325 CE ), a Syrian philosopher of Arab origin, was the leader of Neoplatonism in Asia Minor, and a mediator of the works of Plotinus and Porphyry to Late Antiquity [23].
Peter Van Nuffelen follows Timothy Barnes in positing that the letters addressed to Iamblichus were written between 314–319 by an unknown author [24]. Their inclusion puts Julian in the cohort of Iamblichus and amplifies his philosophical credentials. Another in the apocryphal section is Ep. 83 from Eustathius the philosopher to Julian. They contain the Classical trope of the letter as a relic of the absent friend who wrote it, as does Ep. 77 to Iamblichus, where the author describes how he held the letter to his lips and kissed it many times, even holding the signature to his eyes and clinging to the letters as to the fingers of the writer’s hand. Epp. 77 and 79 also contain strong affirmations of male friendship, common to both pagans and Christians, and cross the religious divide in some cases, such as those regarding Augustine and Alypius, fellow students in Rome and later fellow-bishops of North Africa. Letter 79 starts with a touch of literary display of his Homeric learning in the form of a quotation from Od. 16.187:
Ὀδυσσεῖ μὲν ἐξήρκει τοῦ παιδὸς τὴν ἐφ᾿ αὑτῷ Bφαντασίαν ἀναστέλλοντι λέγειν οὔτις τοι θεός εἰμι· τί μ᾿ ἀθανάτοισιν ἐίσκεις; ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδ᾿ ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἶναι φαίην ἂν ὅλως, ἕως ἂν Ἰαμβλίχῳ μὴ συνῶ. ἀλλ᾿ ἐραστὴς μὲν εἶναι σὸς ὁμολογῶ, καθάπερ ἐκεῖνος τοῦ Τηλεμάχου πατήρ.
Odysseus was trying to remove his son’s illusion about him, it was enough for him to say: “No God am I. Why then do you liken me to the immortals?” But I might say that I do not exist at all among men so long as I am not with Iamblichus. Nay, I admit that I am your lover, even as Odysseus that he was the father of Telemachus [25].
Another virtue friend was the philosopher Priscus, who received a summons to join Julian in Gaul in 359 ( Ep. 1 ). A second letter directed to Priscus, also from Gaul in 359, shows that friendship letters could also bear requests for aid. Having just survived a severe illness in the winter of 358, Julian in Ep. 2 asks Priscus to send books, especially “all the writings of Iamblichus to his namesake” of which Priscus’ sister’s son-in-law had a version [26]. He thanks Priscus for making him a disciple of Aristotle through one volume summarising the Greek writings [27]. Another pure friendship letter is more surprisingly addressed to Basil, his fellow student in Athens. Julian composed Ep. 26 to Basil in early 362, asking him to visit him in the capital, and showing off his learning by citing Plato: “Then show it by your deeds and hasten to me, for you will come as friend to friend.” [28] He goes on to praise the frank exchange of views that they enjoy: “we refute and criticise one another with appropriate frankness, whenever it is necessary, [ we ] love one another as much as the most devoted friends.” He offers Basil use of the cursus publicus to visit him in the capital.
This singular letter stands out among imperial correspondence as being more familiar than the usual tone of imperial correspondence with bishops, especially when one considers the religious divide. Their common experience of paideia seems to bridge that gap. The bitter side of friendship once lost is seen in the friendship-terminating letter, Ep. 81 to the great bishop Basil of Caesarea.
Cave Wright rejects the attribution to Julian of Ep. 81 on the grounds of style and content, opining: “This letter, generally recognised as spurious, is perhaps a Christian forgery, since it gives an unfavourable impression of Julian. The writer knew nothing of Julian’s style and mannerisms. Julian was no boaster and avoided outlandish words.” [29] Perhaps recognising the weakness of her arguments, Cave Wright elsewhere notes that Ep. 81 to Basil was a possible exception to those “certainly not by Julian” ( i. e. Epp. 74–83 ) [30]. The letter shows Julian boasting of his dominion and defending his fitness to be called emperor against the impudent claims of the bishop:
πάντας ὑπηκόους ἐκομισάμην τοὺς οἰκοῦντας τὴν ὑφ᾿ ἥλιον. ἰδοὺ γὰρ πᾶν γένος βαρβάρων μέχρις ὁρίων ὠκεανοῦ ποταμοῦ δῶρά μοι κομίζον ἧκε παρὰ ποσὶ τοῖς ἐμοῖς, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Σαγάδαρες [ … ] οὗτοι κατὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν προκαλινδοῦνται ἴχνεσι τοῖς ἐμοῖς, ὑπισχνούμενοι ποιεῖν ἐκεῖνα, ἅπερ τῇ ἐμῇ ἁρμόζει βασιλείᾳ. [ … ] ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸς ἐπέκεινα τῆς τούτων δυνάμεως πεφρόνηκας, εὐλάβειαν μὲν λέγων ἐνδεδύσθαι, ἀναίδειαν δὲ προβαλλόμενος, καὶ πανταχοῦ διαφημίζων ἀνάξιόν με τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλείας γεγονέναι.
For lo, every tribe of barbarians as far as the boundaries of the river of Ocean has come bringing gifts to lay at my feet! And likewise the Sagadares [ … ] These at the present time are grovelling in my footprints and promise to do whatever suits my majesty’s pleasure. [ … ] But you have in your own person displayed a pride far exceeding the power of all these, when you say that you are clothed in pious reserve, but in fact flaunt your impudence, and spread a rumour on all sides that I am not worthy to be Emperor of the Romans [31].
Three temples were destroyed by Christians in Caesarea. Sozomen relates that Julian ordered their restoration, confiscated the estates of the Church, and imposed a fine of 300 lbs. of gold [32]. This witness seems to me to confirm the authenticity of Letter 81. Julian’s death in late 363 may have prevented the enforcement of the penalty.
Another bishop with whom Julian was on friendly terms was Bishop Aetius, reversing the Arian religious policy of his predecessor Constantius. In Ep. 15, written from Constantinople in January 362, Julian recalls the bishop from exile and invites him to court, even offering him transport at the fisc’s expense, and blaming the “folly of the Galilaeans” who had convinced his predecessor Constantius to take sides in the quarrel. Those bishops too were recalled from exile [33]. Showing similar mercy, he returned Bishop Zeno to the see of Alexandria after the Arian Bishop George had exiled him ( Ep. 17 ). In Ep. 21 he reproaches the people of Alexandria for murdering their bishop George [34]. An earlier letter to Ecdicius asked for Bishop George’s secretary Porphyry to send him George’s library which contained many books of philosophy. The following letter orders a secretary to compel slaves by torture to reveal thieves of a large Christian library.
3.1.2 Friendship Letters to Women
Another message about the exchange of books was one of two or three letters to the priestess Theodora, in 362. Ep. 33, addressed to “the most reverend Theodora”, with whom he enjoyed a frequent correspondence, was delivered by one Mygdonius, who had protected Libanius in Constantinople in 343 [35].
Τὰ πεμφθέντα παρὰ σοῦ βιβλία πάντα ὑπεδεξάμην καὶ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς ἄσμενος διὰ τοῦ βελτίστου Μυγδονίου. καὶ μόγις ἄγων σχολήν, ὡς ἴσασιν οἱ θεοί, οὐκ ἀκκιζόμενος λέγω, ταῦτα ἀντέγραψα πρός σε. σὺ δὲ εὖ πράττοις καὶ γράφοις ἀεὶ τοιαῦτα.
I was glad to receive all the books that you sent me, and your letters through the excellent Mygdonius. And since I have hardly any leisure, as the gods know, I speak without affectation, I have written you these few lines. And now farewell, and may you always write me letters of the same sort [36]!
It was written about the same time as Ep. 32 and Ep. 34. In Ep. 34, he thanks the unnamed addressee for her letter, addressing her as “Your Wisdom” ( ἡ σὴ φρόνησις ) [37]. Julian’s exchange of letters and books with women in this way is unprecedented among emperors and aristocratic Roman males, except for Christian bishops.
3.1.3 Letters of Recommendation
Letters of recommendation for travellers also come under the category of friendship letters. These are not ‘pure’ friendship letters because they ask the recipient to do something: to welcome the carrier into their networks and provide them with hospitality and security as they travel through the addressee’s diocese, or in some cases resettle there.
Bishops usually wrote recommendations for travellers who were members of their congregations and were forced to travel for work or were displaced by war or exile. Christian examples include the Cappadocians’ letters to family and friends, including those of Basil, as well as those of Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters of recommendation are mentioned in a letter to the priestess Theodora ( Ep. 32 ), who had written or received such letters for visitors to a festival, one presumes of Demeter [38]. These guaranteed safe passage and sometimes material aid for the bearer. In this letter, Julian advises that one’s slaves should worship the gods or else be sold, a warning against Jewish or Christian slaves. No examples of such tokens ( tesserae ) survive from Julian’s hand or Theodora’s, unfortunately, but Sozomen relates that Julian wished to establish the same custom among the pagans of supplying letters for travellers ( συνθήματα ) as Christians did [39].
3.1.4 Consolation Letters
Following the Roman Stoic models of Cicero and Seneca, Classical consolation letters could be used to console a friend for a loss, a bereavement, or a challenging change of circumstances, such as political exile. Bishops frequently wrote to men and women who were grieving the loss of spouses or children. They did so in their pastoral capacity, and their letters were based on Stoic principles, but we also find such letters in Libanius and Basil, bishop of Caesarea. So Julian’s letters of consolation to Himerius could be modelled on Classical or Episcopal letters of consolation.
Julian’s Ep. 69 offers consolation to a friend, Himerius, on the death of his young and virtuous wife, mother of his children. Julian recounts a fable from the ‘Odyssey’ that Helen of Troy/Sparta told to Telemachus. The fable, told by Democritus, the Atomistic philosopher, concerns the Persian king Darius, who also lost his beautiful wife. Julian’s recourse to ancient fables mirrors Christian use of scriptural typology.
3.2 Imperial Letter Types
A third significant category in Julian’s correspondence is what we may call ‘imperial’ letters, letters that could only be written by someone of the rank of emperor. Ep. 46 to Ecdicius, prefect of Egypt 362 ( c. October ) from Antioch, expresses his wish to drive an “enemy of the gods”, Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, into exile. Julian commands the prefect to do this promptly because he objects to women of rank being baptised by the bishop [40].
At least one rescript is included in the collection, Ep. 36, on Christian teachers, which offers them the choice of either not to teach the Greek and Latin classics, or else to accept these and teach their pupils that those like Homer and Hesiod are not “guilty of impiety, folly and error in regard to the gods.” [41] A letter type that is peculiar to emperors is that announcing an office to the office-bearer, such as Julian’s Ep. 42 to Callixeine [42]. Already a priestess of Demeter, Callixeine is honoured with the additional office of priestess of the Mother Goddess:
ἀνθ᾿ ὧν ἀμείψονται μέν σε πάντες οἱ θεοί, τὸ παρ᾿ ἡμῶν δὲ διπλῇ σε τιμήσομεν τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ. πρὸς ᾗ γὰρ πρότερον εἶχες τῆς ἁγιωτάτης θεοῦ Δήμητρος, καὶ τῆς μεγίστης Μητρὸς θεῶν τῆς Φρυγίας ἐν τῇ θεοφιλεῖ Πεσσινοῦντι τὴν ἱερωσύνην ἐπιτρέπομέν σοι.
All the gods will requite you for your sufferings and for my part I shall honour you with a double priesthood. For besides that which you held before of priestess to the most venerable goddess Demeter, I entrust to you the office of priestess to the most mighty Mother of the gods in Phrygia at Pessinus, beloved of the gods [43].
It is likely that some or all of these friendship letters were included for the purposes of teaching Greek literary thought and culture ( paideia ), as Michael Grünbart has established for other Byzantine letter collections and as Lieve van Hoof has demonstrated for Libanius [44]. That Julian had his own insights into how those around him used their learning to curry favour is evident from his letter to Nilus Dionysius, the senator who had refused Julian’s offer of an office while Constantius II lived and civil war between the two emperors was a real threat but had sought to take it up afterwards, only to be refused an audience in court and rebuffed in a furious letter from Julian [45]. Julian makes it clear that this letter was for public consumption since he knew it would be read by many who needed it [46].
The offering of such imperial letters as worthy of emulation in literary style should be distinguished from their reception as models of pastoral care, witnessed in those letters identified as ‘pastoral’ below. The educational purposes of the collection would perhaps have still overridden religious affiliations in the mid-fourth century, when elite males – future bishops like Basil of Caesarea, senatorial scions such as Libanius, and members of the Constantinian dynasty like Julian – shared similar rhetorical and philosophical training in the schools of Athens, Pergamum and Apamea.
A possibly not ‘imperial’ but certainly magisterial letter is that sent to Porphyry, the secretary of George of Alexandria, a Cappadocian Arian bishop ( 356–361 ) who was put to death by opponents in the church of Alexandria ( Ep. 38 ). Julian seeks to recover the library of bishop George, with its many volumes of Christian philosophy and history ( τὰ τῶν Γαλιλαίων πολλὰ καὶ παντοδαπὰ βιβλία ) [47] and have it sent to him in Antioch:
γινώσκων ὅτι μεγίστῃ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸς περιβληθήσῃ ζημίᾳ, εἰ μὴ μετὰ πάσης ἐπιμελείας ἀνιχνεύσειας, καὶ τοὺς ὁπωσοῦν ὑπονοίας ἔχοντας ὑφῃρῆσθαι τῶν βιβλίων πᾶσι μὲν ἐλέγχοις, παντοδαποῖς δὲ ὅρκοις, πλείονι δὲ τῶν οἰκετῶν βασάνῳ, πείθειν εἰ μὴ δύναιο, καταναγκάσειας εἰς μέσον πάντα προκομίσαι. ἔρρωσο.
You may be sure that you will yourself incur the severest penalty if you do not trace it with all diligence, and do not by every kind of enquiry, by every kind of sworn testimony and, further, by torture of the slaves, compel, if you cannot persuade, those who are in any way suspected of having stolen any of the books to bring them all forth [48].
Allegedly sent from Antioch, in mid to late 362, this letter’s attribution to Julian has been questioned by Cave Wright. She suggests that it may be a Christian forgery, presumably because it endorses the torture of slaves suspected of theft. Such methods of extracting the truth were quite normal in the fourth-century juridical context and were also practised by Christians, as we know from letters of Pope Leo I in the mid-fifth century. This very feature of Ep. 38 inclines me to think that it is authentic. Another argument for authenticity is Bidez’s ingenious suggestion that Julian needed the resources of the Arian bishop’s library to compose his diatribe ‘Against the Galileans’. It is also likely that there were tomes of episcopal correspondence in George’s collection, including letters of his pro-Nicene counterpart, Athanasius of Alexandria, whose intermittent oversight of the church of Alexandria from 328 was interrupted by several periods of exile until his death in 373.
3.3 Letters of Religious Instruction
Another new letter type for a Roman emperor was that addressed to religious groups, whether offering encouragement ( as Julian to the Jews ) or the opposite ( e. g. ‘Against the Galileans’, a tract rather than a letter, addressed to “all men” ) [49]. These letters may be grouped according to their addressees, whether Hellenes, Christians or Jews.
3.3.1 To Fellow Hellenes
Van Nuffelen suggested that the famous Ep. 84 ( Bidez ) to Arsacius is a forgery because of its use of the phrase “Hellenic religion” to refer to paganism [50]. It is however consistent with other letters by Julian, including Ep. 10 to Eutherius, Julian’s adviser and former slave. Writing around 1 December 361 from Naissa, in this letter, Julian rejoiced in his safety and commands a sacrifice of thanksgiving:
Ζῶμεν ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν σωθέντες· ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ δὲ αὐτοῖς θῦε τὰ χαριστήρια. θύσεις δὲ οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Ἑλλήνων. εἰ δέ σοι σχολὴ καὶ μέχρι τῆς Κωνσταντίνου πόλεως διαβῆναι, τιμησαίμην ἂν οὐκ ὀλίγου τὴν σὴν ἐντυχίαν.
I am alive, and have been saved by the gods. Therefore offer sacrifices to them on my behalf, as thank-offerings. Your sacrifice will be not for one man only, but for the whole body of Hellenes. If you have time to travel as far as Constantinople I shall feel myself highly honoured by your presence [51].
The addressee Eutherius was an Armenian, a free-born son who had been kidnapped, sold into slavery, made a eunuch, and finally attained to the office of court chamberlain in the courts of Constans and Julian, and was a trusted adviser to both [52]. Ammianus reports that Eutherius and the court-marshal Pentadius were employed by Julian in Gaul as confidential letter-bearers to Constantius at Milan [53] The term ‘Hellenes’ was commonly used by neo-Platonist sophists to refer to each other [54].
Ep. 32 to the priestess Theodora offers friendly advice to a woman about her friendship circle: she ought not to be friends with those who do not worship the gods, whether man or woman, slave or free. A second letter to a priestess, whom Cave Wright opines “is almost certainly Theodora”, treats her as a virtue friend and source of wisdom ( Ep. 34 ). This style is in concord with later addresses to women as euthestatê in Byzantine letter collections from the sixth century [55] but stands out as unique in imperial correspondence of the fourth century. In the unaddressed Ep. 34 of 362, Julian advises:
Ἐδεξάμην ὅσα ἐπέστειλεν ἡ σὴ φρόνησις ἀγαθὰ καὶ καλὰ παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἡμῖν ἐπαγγέλματα καὶ δῶρα· καὶ πολλὴν ὁμολογήσας χάριν τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς ἐν δευτέρῳ τῇ σῇ μεγαλοψυχίᾳ χάριν ἔσχον, ὅτι καὶ προσλιπαρεῖν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τοὺς θεοὺς ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα προθυμῇ καὶ τὰ φανέντα παρ᾿ αὑτῇ ἀγαθὰ διὰ ταχέων ἡμῖν καταμηνύειν σπουδάζεις.
I have received from you who are wisdom itself your letter telling me of the fair and blessed promises and gifts of the gods to us. First I acknowledged the great gratitude that I owed to the heavenly gods, and in the second place I rendered thanks to your generosity of soul, in that you are zealous, no one more so, in entreating the gods on my behalf, and moreover you lose no time but inform me without delay of the blessings that have been revealed where you are [56].
It is impossible to compare this generous accolade with the way one would address a priestess in Christian circles, since such a role did not exist. Dinneen observed that the use of the abstract concept “Wisdom” was a form of address that could hardly be found between men even in Late Antique episcopal letter-writing [57]. However, Basil did on occasion write to women of his acquaintance with addresses such as: “your Adornment” ( τὴν κοσμιότητά σου ) [58], “your Demureness” ( τὴν σὴν σεμνοπρέπειαν ) [59] and “Temple of God” ( ναόν σε Θεοῦ ), addressing a virgin before her fall from grace [60].
The restoration of Jerusalem and its temple fitted into Julian’s broader agenda of restoring temples for worship. In Letter 81 to Basil of Caesarea ( mentioned above ), written in 363, Julian imposed on the bishop a fine of 300 pounds of gold after Christians had destroyed three temples [61]. Julian also ordered their restoration and confiscated the church estates. Wright comments that Julian’s death in June 363 may have prevented the enforcement of the penalty [62].
We may compare Julian’s letters to priestesses with contemporary and later Byzantine letters to nuns and abbesses. Grünbart notes that letters written to women represent roughly five percent of the Greek epistolographical corpus from the sixth to twelfth centuries, but there are no surviving letters written by women in Greek before the fourteenth century [63]. By contrast, there are several letters by Christian aristocratic women in Latin from the time of Jerome and they appear more frequently throughout the Middle Ages. Of those five percent of Greek letters that are addressed to women, thirty-five were sent to the wives of highly placed bureaucrats and forty-four to nuns and abbesses, while only twenty-three were addressed to female members of the imperial family. Grünbart is right to warn against reaching hasty conclusions based on so small a sample, but it is notable that Julian does not write any surviving letters to women of the imperial family. This is perhaps due to his estrangement from his male relations, after his involvement in the deaths of his brothers [64].
The desire to restore the Roman cults of Demeter and Cybele is expressed in his letter to the priestess of Demeter, Theodora, in a letter written in the autumn of 362, sent from Constantinople or Antioch:
ἐγὼ δὲ οὐκ ἂν δεξαίμην ὑπὸ τῶν μὴ φιλούντων θεοὺς ἀγαπᾶσθαι· ὃ δὴ καὶ σὲ καὶ πάντας φημὶ δεῖν τοὺς ἱερατικῶν ἀντιποιουμένους ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη διανοηθέντας ἅψασθαι συντονώτερον τῆς εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς ἁγιστείας.
For my part I would not consent to be loved by those who do not love the gods; wherefore I now say plainly that you and all who aspire to priestly offices must bear this in mind and engage with greater energy in the temple worship of the gods [65].
This cult is also mentioned in his letter to the high-priest Arsacius ( Ep. 22 ), where he laments that the Hellenic cults are not doing as well as he would like in Galatia. This letter, whose authenticity has frequently been questioned, was written after he had visited Pessinus on the way to Antioch [66]. The first part of the letter castigates priests for their immorality and the Hellenes for their lack of piety – can they not look after their dead as the atheists, one of Julian’s expressions for Christians, do? The end of Ep. 22, written on his way to Antioch circa June 362, reads like the closing passage of a pastoral epistle from the New Testament:
μὴ δὴ τὰ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀγαθὰ παραζηλοῦν ἄλλοις συγχωροῦντες αὐτοὶ τῇ ῥᾳθυμίᾳ καταισχύνωμεν, μᾶλλον δὲ καταπροώμεθα τὴν εἰς τοὺς θεοὺς εὐλάβειαν. εἰ ταῦτα πυθοίμην ἐγώ σε πράττοντα, μεστὸς εὐφροσύνης ἔσομαι.
Then let us not, by allowing others to outdo us in good works, disgrace by such remissness, or rather, utterly abandon the reverence due to the gods. If I hear that you are carrying out these orders I shall be filled with joy [67].
He declares that his favour depends on their becoming suppliants to the Mother of the Gods [68]. His support is conditional and depends on their not adopting the new cult of the Galileans.
3.3.2 To Christians or ‘Galileans’
Ep. 47 to the Alexandrians, written at the end of 362, concerns the Alexandrian Christian’s request that Athanasius be restored from his fourth exile.
τῶν ὡς ἀληθῶς Ἑβραίων οἱ πατέρες Αἰγυπτίοις ἐδούλευον πάλαι, νυνὶ δὲ ὑμεῖς, ἄνδρες Ἀλεξανδρεῖς, Αἰγυπτίων κρατήσαντες· ἐκράτησε γὰρ ὁ κτίστης ὑμῶν τῆς Αἰγύπτου· τοῖς κατωλιγωρηκόσι τῶν πατρίων δογμάτων δουλείαν ἐθελούσιον ἄντικρυς τῶν παλαιῶν θεσμῶν ὑφίστασθε.
The forefathers of the genuine Hebrews were the slaves of the Egyptians long ago, but in these days, men of Alexandria, you who conquered the Egyptians – for your founder was the conqueror of Egypt – submit yourselves, despite your sacred traditions, in willing slavery to men who have set at naught the teachings of their ancestors [69].
In 362 Julian also addressed to the people of Alexandria Ep. 21, a letter of chastisement on the murder of their bishop George, who had been installed in place of Athanasius upon his first exile. No punishments are threatened. It reads more like a Pauline pastoral letter than an imperial edict. We may compare this mild rebuke to the virulent attack on Christians in Julian’s famous tract ‘Against the Galileans’.
3.3.3 Letter to the Jews
In spite of his repudiation of Christianity, Julian’s high degree of reverence for the Jewish Yahweh is evidenced in two epistolary sources. Ep. 51 to the Jews, from late 362 or early 363, promised to release them from the yoke of slavery by cancelling their tax debts and rebuilding their city. In return, he asks them to pray for his rule [70]:
ὅπερ χρὴ ποιεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἵνα κἀγὼ τὸν τῶν Περσῶν πόλεμον διορθωσάμενος1 τὴν ἐκ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ἐπιθυμουμένην παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν οἰκουμένην πόλιν ἁγίαν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐμοῖς καμάτοις ἀνοικοδομήσας οἰκίσω καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ δόξαν δῶ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν τῷ κρείττονι.
This you ought to do, in order that, when I have successfully concluded the war with Persia, I may rebuild by my own efforts the sacred city of Jerusalem, which for so many years you have longed to see inhabited, and may bring settlers there, and, together with you, may glorify the Most High God therein [71].
Julian’s promise to rebuild the city, to resettle it and probably also restore the Jewish temple just at the time when the Holy City was establishing its place on the Christian pilgrimage route was bound to arouse the ire of its most senior Christian, Cyril of Jerusalem, who may be read to imply in ‘Catechetical Homily’ 15 on the Second Coming of Christ that Julian was the Antichrist [72].
Ep. 51 has also been supposed by some, including Bidez and Van Nuffelen, to be a forgery. Van Nuffelen believes that Ep. 51 reflects a juridical context that must date from after 429 CE [73]. This is clear from the reference of the apostolê, a tax on the diasporan Jewish community that helped support the patriarch, an official head of the Jews recognised by Rome, in Jerusalem. That the imperial administrator and philosopher John Lydus thought it was authentic is evident from his citation of a fragment of Julian’s lost letter to the Jews in ‘De Mensibus’, composed in the mid-sixth century: “For I am rebuilding with all zeal the temple of the Most High God.” [74]
4. Neo-Platonist Friendship Letters
It has been observed by Gibson that epistolary forgeries – even obvious ones – seem to be acceptable among non-Christian audiences if they are in the interests of philosophical biography ( like the forged letters of Plato ) [75]. We see this tendency also in the acceptance of fake origin stories for saints and holy places in Christian hagiography. At a conservative estimate, about 50 % of letters in Christian histories are forged or falsely attributed, and maybe a lot more. The letters falsely attributed to Julian include those which enlist him as a member of the neo-Platonist philosophical sect which flourished in the early fourth century around Iamblichus. I pass over here two other friendship letters addressed to Julian: Ep. 80 to Sarapion, otherwise unknown, and Ep. 82 from Gallus Caesar, Julian’s half-brother.
Ep. 28 to the Argives is generally thought to have been written up to 200 years before Julian, since the recommendations it makes were already well in place in Julian’s day [76], even if Bidez counted Ep. 28 among the authentic letters in his 1924 edition. Other claims for authenticity are more dubious, including the last letter to Basil, later bishop of Caesarea ( 370–379 ). This letter with its invective against Basil and its arrogant claims to his own power over many barbarian races casts the emperor in a poor light. Arguments made on the basis of literary or rhetorical style alone or what the modern translator believes that Julian would or would not have said need to be treated with utmost caution. Scholars of these letters need to recognise diversity in the unity of Julian’s letter collection and allow that his views may have changed as his relationships with the addressees changed over time.
5. Conclusion
We have seen that several characteristics may be adduced by modern scholars to discern authentic from forged letters in Julian’s corpus. These include the following: their literary style is different from that of other genuine letters, the views expressed are judged inconsistent with those of Julian in his genuine letters; and their historical context, including the juridical context, reveals anachronisms. There are three further points to highlight from this brief study of Julian’s letters.
First, this brief study of a representative sample of Julian’s letters confirms the thesis that the differences between Classical and Christian letters across all letter types are not as great as has previously been supposed. Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil argued the same from a study of predominantly Christian letter-writers of 300 to 600 CE, pointing to evidence from material letter production, continuity of function and type, manners of address, means of distribution, and accompanying gifts [77]. Many of Julian’s letters, like Christian letters, are addressed to ‘virtue friends’, sometimes even Christians who later became bishops. He frequently uses Classical tropes ( e. g. the letter as a physical token of an absent friend ) and styles of address and offers or requests gifts such as books and copies of speeches or other literary productions to cement relationships. Julian’s letters resemble those of other leading thinkers of his day, such as Libanius and the disciples of Iamblichus, in their self-conscious displays of Classical learning ( paideia ). Julian is not unusual in framing his learning and circles as Hellenic but stands out in his use of the term ‘Hellenic religion’ to describe traditional cults like those of Demeter and the Mother Goddess. It is his mastery of a combination of styles – ranging from pastoral epistle to imperial edict, to philosophical friendship letter – that marks him out as singular among his peers.
Second, Julian’s letters – like others from late antiquity – are valuable not just for their record of political events but because they tell us about other kinds of people who do not often turn up in the literary record, such as slaves, letter-bearers, and women. There is a significant difference between Classical letters, which avoid the particular and revel in philosophical abstractions, and Late Antique letters, which convey high levels of detail on practical matters. Julian’s letters combine the two types of content – the abstract and the particular – in interesting ways. We see this in his instructions to his agents to acquire the philosophical library of a bishop who had recently been murdered, or to torture slaves if they would not reveal the whereabouts of the books, which included Christian works.
Julian’s extensive letter corpus also bears witness to a new capacity in Late Antiquity to write to women previously unknown to the author and to write to women of a different status than oneself. A bishop could write to women at court – queen mothers, emperors’ wives and sisters – or other women of senatorial families. They also wrote to deaconesses and consecrated widows and virgins, who had a special status within church communities. In Julian’s letter-corpus we see him writing to female religious officials, treating them as intellectual equals. This is a unique feature of Julian’s reign.
Third, many of the examples discussed here seem to support the hypothesis that Julian was inspired by the correspondence of bishops he knew and with whom he exchanged letters. The archived collection of Basil of Caesarea before he became bishop in 370 included new letter types – including pastoral letters; letters ending friendships or giving moral advice to priests or widows or fallen nuns, and letters to religious groups – as well as familiar Classical types, such as friendship letters, consolation letters, written requests for books, visits, and other personal services. There is also the strong possibility that the library of the Arian bishop of Alexandria, George of Cappadocia, contained letters of other Christian bishops. While the question of Julian’s epistolary models must remain a hypothesis, it enhances the historical dimensions of this famous emperor, philosopher and letter-writer to recognise that Julian’s letter collection( s ), as passed down in the manuscript tradition, were sometimes more typical of a Christian bishop’s correspondence than of a late Roman emperor, even while we must allow for the possibility that this impression may be due in greater part to the principles of selection imposed by collectors than to any desire on Julian’s part to represent himself this way.
© 2023 bei den Autoren, publiziert von De Gruyter.
Dieses Werk ist lizensiert unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung - Nicht-kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitung 4.0 International Lizenz.
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- The pauperes in the ‘Libri Historiarum’ of Gregory of Tours
- Neue Forschungen zu Glashandwerkern unter den Karolingern und ihren Nachfolgern ( 8. bis 10. Jahrhundert )
- Störende Statuen?
- Contesting Religious Truth
- Wirtschaftssanktionen im 13. Jahrhundert
- Wer die worheit gerne mynn / Und sich güter dinge versynn, / Der müsz der besten einre sin
- Petrus Berchorius bei den Dunkelmännern
- Einheit in der Vielfalt – Vielfalt in der Einheit? Unity in Diversity – Diversity in Unity? Rudolf Hercher(’)s Epistolographi Graeci
- Einheit in der Vielfalt – Vielfalt in der Einheit?
- Philostrats ,Briefe‘ – Einheit in der Vielfalt, Vielfalt in der Einheit?
- From Letter Collections to Letter Writing Manuals
- Phalaris & co.
- New and Old Letter Types in the Corpus of Julian the Apostate ( 361–363 )
- Zur Zusammenstellung der Handschriften der ‚Epistula ad Ammaeum II‘ des Dionysios von Halikarnass
- Dionysios von Antiocheia und das Schicksal einer spätantiken Briefsammlung
- Priests in a Post-Imperial World, c. 900–1050
- Introduction
- Local Priests and their Siblings c. 900–c. 1100
- Tithes in the Long 10th Century
- Bishops, Priests and Ecclesiastical Discipline in Tenth and Eleventh-Century Lotharingia
- The Earliest Form and Function of the ‘Admonitio synodalis’ *
- Orts-, Personen- und Sachregister
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- The pauperes in the ‘Libri Historiarum’ of Gregory of Tours
- Neue Forschungen zu Glashandwerkern unter den Karolingern und ihren Nachfolgern ( 8. bis 10. Jahrhundert )
- Störende Statuen?
- Contesting Religious Truth
- Wirtschaftssanktionen im 13. Jahrhundert
- Wer die worheit gerne mynn / Und sich güter dinge versynn, / Der müsz der besten einre sin
- Petrus Berchorius bei den Dunkelmännern
- Einheit in der Vielfalt – Vielfalt in der Einheit? Unity in Diversity – Diversity in Unity? Rudolf Hercher(’)s Epistolographi Graeci
- Einheit in der Vielfalt – Vielfalt in der Einheit?
- Philostrats ,Briefe‘ – Einheit in der Vielfalt, Vielfalt in der Einheit?
- From Letter Collections to Letter Writing Manuals
- Phalaris & co.
- New and Old Letter Types in the Corpus of Julian the Apostate ( 361–363 )
- Zur Zusammenstellung der Handschriften der ‚Epistula ad Ammaeum II‘ des Dionysios von Halikarnass
- Dionysios von Antiocheia und das Schicksal einer spätantiken Briefsammlung
- Priests in a Post-Imperial World, c. 900–1050
- Introduction
- Local Priests and their Siblings c. 900–c. 1100
- Tithes in the Long 10th Century
- Bishops, Priests and Ecclesiastical Discipline in Tenth and Eleventh-Century Lotharingia
- The Earliest Form and Function of the ‘Admonitio synodalis’ *
- Orts-, Personen- und Sachregister
