Baker-Brian, Julian Apostate, Bmcr Brynmawr Edu 2013 2013-04-24 HTML

pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

BMCR 2013.04.24 on the BMCR blog

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.04.24

Nicholas Baker-Brian, Shaun Tougher (ed.), Emperor and Author:The Writings of Julian the Apostate. Swansea: Classical Press ofWales, 2012. Pp. xxi, 384. ISBN 9781905125500. $110.00.

Reviewed by Hagith Sivan, University of Kansas ([email protected])

Preview

Does it take one author to know another? Perhaps like Gore Vidal, Julian would haveentitled his memoirs a palimpsest. Both men grew up in a house of Atreus and bothultimately proved to be failed politicians, one to act as an emperor by right of birth, the otherto constitute himself as a shadow emperor by right of maternal remarriage. In 2009 anassembly of scholars approached and probed Julian as an object of literary analysis. Theoutcome is impressive, comprising of 19 wide-ranging articles.

The brief introduction by the editors is nicely complemented by Jacqueline Longsafterword which acts as a summary-commentary on all the papers in this volume. This is awelcome feature of the collection. The new Julian emerges as a versatile and manipulativeauthor, albeit somewhat pedantic and demanding. He is a man entitled to an analysis


usually accorded to an accomplished author with literary sensibilities determined by hisupbringing and career. The degree to which it is possible to separate the man from theauthor, the emperor from his writings, and Julian from his Christian imperial family andsuccessors is, however, not simple to determine.

The first three essays focus on Julians family orations, the two speeches to Constantiusand the one to Eusebia. Shawn Tougher deals with Julian the family panegyrist, specificallywith the first panegyric on Constantius II (Or 1). He links it with two other near contemporaryworks of the same nature, Themistius first two orations (both addressed to Constantius),and Libanius Or. 59, all three perhaps providing models for a young prince contemplating asimilar literary venture. The difference was subtle yet powerful. Themistius and Libaniuscould perform their presentation in the traditional role of a panegyrist. They did not have torewrite a family history. Julian was too close to the subject and hence was also deliberatelysubversive (p. 29). Hal Drake follows the panoply of Homeric heroes that Julian enlisted inhis second speech to Constantius in order to magnify the virtues of the addressee.Pondering the date, fate, and the circumstances of the oration Drake boldly asserts that weneed to read the oration as a parody, a light hearted literary composition composed to whileaway the harsh Parisian winters. It never made its way to the court or to Constantius. Agame of words, the second oration to Constantius was a caricature. As such, itcomplemented the limited and one sided picture that we have of Constantius and his court(p. 43). Ammianus evidently had a worthy forerunner. Completing the portrait of thissomewhat dysfunctional imperial family Liz James analyses the speech of thanks toEusebia, Constantius wife and Julians patron at the court. This is an important speech, notthe least since, as James correctly notes, it is the only surviving panegyric about a woman.1.With a slight adaptation of the iconic rules laid down by Menander on the composition ofpanegyrics, Julians oration managed to depict a generic empress. James examinesseveral propositions: the speech as a critique of Constantius, as implicitly critical ofEusebia herself, and as a piece geared to an audience that shared with the author acomplicit silence, an understanding that the words heard did not match up to a realitycheck (pp. 52-4). Was Julian in a position to criticise, openly or otherwise, the imperial


couple? Was the imperial couple too obtuse to comprehend the criticism? Perhaps, then,the speech was written retrospectively (p. 54), after the parties were safely in their grave.Julians Eusebia is ultimately an image that reflects its creator more than the womancreated, a construct that falls somewhere between the empress presented by Ammianusand the counter picture preserved in Christian sources.

A retrospective campaign was conducted by Gregory Nazianzen in his battle of words withJulian, as Susanna Elm ably argues both in her contribution to this volume and in her bookon the subject. Analysing the clash between these two worthy opponents, the one quitedead, Elm shows how the posthumous war ranged, battlefield by battlefield, and how thewinner scored only because he and the defeated party were so evenly matched. Withoutpaganism there could be no Christianity, and without Julian the Hellenist no Gregory thetheologian (p. 15).

Mark Humphries sets out to save from oblivion Julians letter to the Athenians, dispatchedfrom Naissus when the shadow of a civil war was looming large. It is a rare document thatoutlines a justification for usurpation and, if need be, for a civil war. A similar message wassent to other cities, in itself an act of unparalleled originality. One wonders whether Julianstrue weakness resided in the compulsive habit of an author to explain and justify every move.Emperors rarely do. In his perspicacious analysis of the text Humphries traces the artful wayin which Julian recast his opponent, transforming the benevolent ruler of his earlierpanegyrics into a tyrant who ought to be deposed for the general good. As an appeal forsupport the Letter was a masterpiece of propaganda. It was not put to the test. Its efficacycannot be measured.

Two other contributors focus on other pieces of Julianic correspondence (Watt, Trapp),providing fresh insights into the person, the genre, and the larger literary-political context inwhich these were composed

Jill Harries correctly asks which pieces of Julians vast literary output, especially his legal


rulings, is likely to have been the authentic words of the emperor himself. She shows that theeditors of the Theodosian Code who incorporated Julians laws in the Code elected,perhaps perversely, to ignore Julians intentions while incorporating the rules that he hadpromulgated. Harries peruses the fine line that Julian had to tread. As member ofConstantines family he could not afford to ignore the laws of his predecessors. But he couldengage in covert criticism (p. 132). She concludes with the observation that Julians lawsreflected his personality and style to a much greater degree than the laws issued by any ofhis imperial successors.

Three articles address the public image of the emperor as reflected in inscriptions, coinsand artistic objects (Salway, Lpez Snchez, Varner). Salway includes a useful summary ofthe inscriptions that relate to Julians reign, concluding that the genuine voice of the emperorrarely came through. Lpez Snchez follows Julians coinage, stage by stage, focusing onthe Arlesian mint and on the famous bull coinage, both less idiosyncratic than had beenassumed. In fact, the coins conformed to established patterns of imperial coinage ratherthan to the emperors personal preferences. Varner analyses the iconography of Julianportraiture on both coins and statues, tracing their artistic genealogy back to Aeneas, Numa,Marcus Aurelius and Pythagoras. The fine analysis offers a welcome corrective to the imageof Julian the Hellenist. When need be, the emperor Julian knew how to conduct himself as aRoman.

Another mini-collection of challenging articles focuses on literary expressions of Juliansreligion, from his hymns to the Mother of the God (Liebeschuetz) and to Helios (A. Smith),through his speeches against the Cynics (Marcone), his composition against the Galileans(Hunt) and the Misopogon (Baker-Brian). Liebeschuetz examines the Hymn to the Mother ofthe Gods as a centrepiece of Julians program of religious revival over which he was topreside as a grand priest. Both this Hymn and the one to Helios represent a systematicintellectual apology for the paganism that Julian was seeking to revive. With a sure handLiebeschuetz paints a broad canvass as he pulls together strands from Neoplatonism, theChaldean Oracles, the Cynics, allegorical interpretation, Attis, Cybele and Helios, festival


and myth interpretation, and Christianity. By way of conclusion, Liebeschuetz allows theemperor, his audience, and modern readers to share the lovely final prayer to Cybele. Grantme that I may have true knowledge and that the close of my life may be painless andglorious. Was it?

I am not sure how painful or painless was Julians death but he certainly enjoyed aremarkable afterlife as a noted wit, whose Caesars found cheerful translators andappreciative audiences in the 16th-18th centuries. Rowland Smiths fascinating postmortem of Julians Caesars provides a testimony, if one is needed, that although themovement lost, the man ultimately won. Centuries after his brief reign Julian became amalleable underdog, a model of enlightened tolerance for Voltaire (p. 310). It was theultimate apotheosis as Flavius Claudius Iulianus was transformed into Mr Julian theApostate, a gentleman whom Henry Fielding paired with other ingeniously created denizensof the Elysian Fields.

This is a volume that ought to be read by any student of Julian and, indeed, by any student oflate antiquity. In view of the high quality of the contributions, I suspect that it would have beenuseful, and original, to include a portion or even the whole of the discussions that must havefollowed each presentation.

Notes:

1. See also my comments in Galla Placidia. The Last Roman Empress (Oxford 2011).

Read comments on this review or add a comment on the BMCR blog

Home ReadLatest

Archives BMCRBlog

AboutBMCR

Review forBMCR

Commentaries SupportBMCR


BMCR, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

Baker-Brian, Julian Apostate, Bmcr Brynmawr Edu 2013 2013-04-24 HTML

Documents

Transcript of Baker-Brian, Julian Apostate, Bmcr Brynmawr Edu 2013 2013-04-24 HTML