Ben Rogaczewski

2
Few historical figures have captured the focus and controversial,
as that of the Roman emperor Julian, also known to history as Julian
the Apostate. Only ruling for about a year and a half before his tragic
death in battle against the Persians, Julian strangely fascinates
everyone, from the historical scholar to the everyday reader. Why is it
that an emperor who ruled for a mere year and half, is so fascinating to
all?
Building legends, Christians after Julians death saw Julian as a
symbol of evil, creating legends of an epitome of Diocletian, mimicry of
the Great Persecution of the third century. In the Age of Enlightenment,
Julian was exemplified as the hero of Gibbons Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, a hero who stood up to the ancient Church. Even
today, these images or visions of Julian create the argument of who
was Julian the Apostate?
Immortalized to the modern world through Gore Vidals Julian as
man of reason against in unreasonable Christianity is a pleasant vision
to the modern day atheist, scoffing at the predecessor of a majority
religion, but is historically unlikely. However, this has also caused
several historians of Late Antiquity to argue their own image of Julian,
based upon the sources related to him, be it his own letters or prose, or
critical memoires. These different visions of Julian are the topic of this
examination, culminated from the set standard of English-speaking
studies of Julian the Apostate. The unfortunate truth is that as a young

3
scholar, I lack the knowledge of French and German, and therefore
cannot describe works such J. Bidezs study of the Emperor Julian, a
work which scholars such as Polymnia Athanassiadi refer to as the best
portrayal of Julian the Apostate to date. However, the availability in
modern times for scholarly works of Julian the Apostate in English,
allow a younger generation of scholars to view Julians life. This is
much in the same way as Peter Brown had taken European studies of
Late Antiquity, and brought the English-speaking scholars into the
arena, so to speak.
As for the vision of Julian, the modern day scholars vary on the
personage of Julian the Apostate, almost as much as ancient
biographers varied on his personage. Ammianus Marcellinus knew
Julian personally, as he was a soldier under Julian in Gaul and Persia,
and his view of Julian is one of much praise, but also some criticisms,
especially with Julians edict against Christian teachers. On the other
hand, other pagan biographers of Julian, such as Zosimus writing in the
6th century AD, have nothing but praise for their pagan hero. The same
sentiment is said of modern biographers. However, more criticism is
given to Julians religious aspects, than any other part of his life. From
these studies, the image of Julian as a puritanical pagan, one who
frightened pagans, as well Christians, who did not want their lives
changed too much, by religious zeal1, is given alongside another
1 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1978). Pgs. 79-80.

4
scholars view that Julians conversion to paganism was similar to
many in the time of Late Antiquity who were Christians on the outside,
but pagans within.2 The contradiction of these two views is what Julian
historians call the standard of study, found within the writings of
Bowersock and Browning. This is of course a deviation from
biographers before this standard, such as Giuseppe Ricciotti.
Only several years after Bowersock and Browning had set the
standard for English-speaking studies of Julian, Polymnia Athanassiadi
wrote her biography of Julian titled Julian and Hellenism. About a
decade after her first publishing of the book, she reprinted the book
under the new title Julian: An Intellectual Biography. Referring to her
book as a counterpart to Bowersocks biography, Athanassiadi devoted
several years of study to look at Julians intellectual and emotional life.
Accidently, she had created a new perspective on the study of Julian,
the focus on the intellectual. Rather than focus upon what others say
about Julian, she turned her focus on Julians written works. Using
Julians works, Athanassiadi felt she could give a proper portrayal of
the real Julian, a goal that Bowersock had for his own work.
A couple of years after Athanassiadi reprinted her intellectual
biography of Julian; Rowland Smith took the intellectual biography a
step further. Whereas Athanassiadi focused on Julians written works

2 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California:

University of California Press, 1978). P. 109.

5
and other primary sources such as Libanius orations and Ammianus
memoire, Smith focused his attention mainly upon Julians invectives
against the Cynics and Christians, along with his prose. Rowland
Smiths book Julians Gods, focuses on Julian as learned man, with a
sense of humor, a view he finds conflicting with Bowersocks
puritanical pagan.3

As for Julians life, all of the modern, as well as ancient, scholars

give a general narrative. Julian was born in Constantinople during the
reign of Constantine, and at the six, became an orphan via the murder
of his father and several other males of his family. Constantines son,
Constantius, according to the scholars, had a hand in murders, whether
by order or lack of control of the soldiers. Many of the scholars point to
the former. Constantius sent Julian away from Constantinople, to
Cappadocia, Nicomedia and Athens, all for his own education. It was
during this time that Julian learned from Neo-Platonists, as well as
Christians.
When Constantius began to have trouble controlling the western
half of the empire, he established Julian as Caesar of Gaul. While in
Gaul, Julian had many military successes, such as the Battle of
Strasbourg. However, when Constantius needed part of Julians troops
3 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought
and Action of Julian the Apostate (New York, New York: Routledge,
1995). P. 220.

6
for his Persian expedition, Julians troops rose up and declared Julian
the emperor of Rome. Julian accepted the acclamation and began to
march towards Constantinople. On the way, Julian received a message
stating that Constantius had died. Julian was now the sole ruler of the
empire.
While emperor, Julian declared religious toleration and brought
back all Athanasian bishops and clergy from exile, which was imposed
by Constantius. He also declared that all Christian teachers were no
longer allowed to teach the pagan classics. After putting his edicts into
place, he set his gaze on Persia. He prepared his soldiers for Persia,
and marched towards Antioch in Syria.
While in Antioch, he met the predominately Christian city with a
poor mood. Displeasure had filled him about the way paganism was
poorly treated in Antioch. The Christian Antiochenes were also
displeased by Julians presence, and mocked his appearance,
especially his philosophers beard. This prompted Julian to write his
work titled Misopogon, or Beard Hater. With that, Julian left Antioch
with his troops and made his way to Persia.
Julian died while in battle against the Persians in 363. Upon his
death, soldiers searched for the new emperor amongst the ranks, and
Jovian was selected.
This is generally the accepted narrative of Julians life. However,
each of these modern day authors give a different view of Julian, based

7
upon the sources they use. I intend to present each of these authors
biographies first based upon the focus of the biography and the image
of Julian the biography portrays. Then I will look at the criticism of
sources used.

The earliest modern work of Julian within this study is Julian the
Apostate by Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti. Ricciottis main purpose for his
book is to use all the reliable sources to create a non-partisan view of
Julian. This is also a continuation of Ricciotis first book The Age of
Martyrs, which is concerned with Diocletians persecutions.4 For the
most part, Ricciotti does not view Julian as a non-partisan historian, but
rather focuses on Julians relationship with Christianity. Riccioti even
goes so far as to state that
This hatred for the all-powerful Constantius
was bound to extend to every facet of his
being, beginning with his adherence to
Christianity. Julian was driven to hate this
religion not by any philosophical or abstract
reasons but by the fact that his murderous
cousin was a Christian.5
By this statement, Ricciotti is saying that no other reason, such
as Neo-Platonism or the survival of paganism, caused Julian to hate
Christianity than his recognition that Constantius, who was a Christian,
4 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. xi.
5 Ibid. p. 42.

8
murdered his family. By that standard of association, Christianity killed
his family. I find this statement to be rather bold, and improbable for a
couple of reasons. It is possible that the murder of Julians family
affected Julian; more than possible even. However, Julian was a learned
man, taught by Christians as well as pagans. If he hated Christianity so
much, then why did he invite Christians to be a part of imperial
counsel? The view that Julian would hate a religion based solely on the
murder of his family portrays an irrational Julian. However, the writings
of Julian do not show an irrational character, nor does Ammianus or
Libanius describe him as such. Therefore, this statement is simply
polemical to show Julian as irrational and highly anti-Christian from an
early age.
Another view that Riccioti takes with Julians reign is the
presence of a persecution of Christians. None of the other modern
works of Julians life state anything related to a persecution of
Christians. Ricciotti states
There was no official persecution, but there
certainly were Christians who suffered abuse
and violence from the hands of pagans acting
with the tacit approval of the authoritiesIn a
word, there was a disguised persecution guided
by the hand of power.6

6 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 182.

9
From this statement, it can be understood that there was
religious violence taking place, but Ricciotti does not bring up the fact
that Christians provoked the violence. Now this does not excuse the
religious violence in anyway, but the statement above makes it seem
that Christians were being persecuted because they were Christians.
Ricciotti states in the next paragraph about the murder of George of
Cappadocia, in which George of Cappadocia was murdered by a group
of pagans. However, Ricciotti makes the connection that both
Christians and pagans hated George7, and so there is the possibility
that Christians were involved with the lynching of George of
Cappadocia.
The stress of the possibility that Julians reign created a persecution
of Christians further proves the polemic against Julian. Ricciotti uses a
series of martyrs, recorded by Christian historians, to try to prove that
a persecution took place.8 However, I do not understand why Ricciotti
would do this. Is he trying to show that Julian was even more antiChristian than was previously thought? I feel that this is not necessary
to the study of Julian since it was not official, but also because it does
not further our study of Julian.

7 Ibid. p. 182.
8 Ibid. p. 184.

10
The final criticism I have of Ricciotti is the portrayal of Julian as a
superstitious mystic. While Julian is marching towards Constantinople,
Ricciotti states
Two typical aspects of Julians character appear
in this context: fervent mysticism and cold
calculation, ample play for omens and
sacrificial offerings but exact attention also to
the realities amidst which one had to work.9
Ricciotti throughout the book labels Julians superstitious nature
as being almost exclusive. Ricciotti does not bring up the fact that
many others in Late Antiquity were highly superstitious, searching for
omens to justify their actions. Browning brings up this idea in his
biography, including aspects of Constantines superstitious apotropaic
use of the cross and the devotion to Sol Invictus.10 Perhaps Ricciotti did
not wish to compare Christianitys Constantine the Great with Julian the
Apostate. Both were highly superstitious, but to scold these two would
require the scolding of the empire.
A final word on Ricciottis biography on Julian leaves us with a couple
things to say. Overall, this biography is not non-partisan. It portrays
Julian as the Christian legends portray Julian: an irrational,
superstitious persecutor of Christians. It does not add much to the
study of Julian in this respect. Where it could have added aspects to
9 Ibid. p. 161.
10 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California:
University of California Press, 1978). P. 3.

11
make it non-partisan, it did not. The other modern authors of Julians
biographies do not mention any criticism for Ricciottis book, and yet
many of the authors list Ricciottis book as a source.

With Robert Brownings book, The Emperor Julian, a more

balanced view of Julian is given, than that of Ricciotis portrayal.
However, this is not surprising based upon Brownings preface.
Browning states, the purpose of his book is to show Julian as
A man of his time, sharing alike its superstition
and its rationalism, its pragmatism and its
concern for dogma.11
More or less, Browning wishes to show Julian not as Ricciotti did,
as that of an exclusive outsider, but rather as a rational man of Late
Antiquity. In my opinion, Browning accomplishes this goal very well in
the book. Placing Julian in Late Antiquity, an age essentially of religious
ambivalence, allows Browning the ability to explain Julians
conversion from Christianity to paganism as similar to that of other
pagans wearing the Christian mask. When Browning confronts Julians
religious feelings between Christianity and paganism, he states
He [Julian] had, like many others in the fourth
century, been living a kind of double life,
outwardly a member of the Christian Church,
privately taking part in the rites of the

11 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California:

University of California Press, 1978). P. xi.

12
syncretistic pagan mystery religions of late
antiquity.
Brownings statement shows an excellent example of the
religious ambivalence of the times. However, I have one slight issue
with this statement. Explaining Julians conversion to paganism as
being a similar trend amongst other Christian converted pagans,
lessens the strength of his conversion to paganism. Julian himself
states that until his twentieth year, he walked in darkness, but thanks
to the gods, he walked in the lighted path for twelve years.12 His own
statement of coming into the light from darkness gives the reader
the sense that his conversion was a very profound moment in his life.
So much so, that he professed it to the Alexandrians in a letter he sent
them.
In his epilogue, Browning adds something different from many of the
other biographies such as Ricciottis and Bowersocks. In the epilogue,
Browning gives a lengthy chronology of Julian in works such as plays
and novels. Not surprisingly, most of the plays are tragedies. One
interesting connection is St. Augustines coverage of Julian. St.
Augustine states
He had unusual talents, which were lead astray
through his ambition for power by a
sacrilegious and detestable inquisitiveness.13

12 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 48.

13
As a commentary to this statement, Browning says
Inquisitiveness and ambition for power are
human errors that accompany excellence.
Augustines Julian is not diabolical.14
True to his point, Browning does accomplish his goal of
portraying Julian as a man of his time. However, G. W. Bowersock, who
wrote his biography of Julian in response to Brownings biography, has
this to say about Brownings Julian
It should perhaps be said here that the present
interpretation of Julian and his career differs
from Brownings in attending explicitly to the
ancient testimony and in sketching a portrait
quite unlike his.15
With this criticism in mind, we must now look at how Bowersock views
Julian.
Bowersocks Julian the Apostate, as the title shows, bears no
deviation from the concept that Julian was an apostate of the Christian
faith. It is no surprise then that Bowersocks book is a response to
Brownings The Emperor Julian, whose title stresses that Julian is not
the Apostate, but rather one of many apostates at the time.
However, the focus of Bowersocks book is to utilize literary sources
13 Robert Browning, The Emperor Julian (Los Angeles, California:
University of California Press, 1978). P. 226.
14 Ibid. p. 226.
15 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 1.

14
contemporaneous to Julian, along with Julians edicts of the Theodosian
Code, inscriptions, and numismatics. By utilizing all of these sources,
Bowersocks goal is to show what he considers the historical Julian.
Along with this, Bowersock states that he will not stress much upon
Julians Neo-Platonism, since it is only essential to Julians emotional
life.16 The concise nature of Bowersocks book, and his criticism of
sources, allowed his biography of Julians life to be placed as a the
standard of the English speaking study of the emperor Julian. More on
his criticism of sources will be given later, but for now, I would like to
divulge into Bowersocks portrayal of the emperor Julian.
In the beginning of Julian the Apostate, Bowersock gives an essay on
Julians personality. In this essay, Bowersock states that Julian was a
simple ascetic, sleeplessly lying on straw, eating a diet that was
anything but filling.17 Noting Julians abstinence of sex, Bowersock also
makes the connection that Julian was worried that, like Marcus
Aurelius, he too would bear a degenerate child.18 This was the reason
he did not remarry, according to Libanius.
Along with Julians asceticism, Bowersock states that Julian felt a deep
connection with the divine. Julian was susceptible to religious

16 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1978). P. xi.
17 Ibid. p. 14.
18 Ibid. p. 15.

15
experiences and mysticism, which was not surprising due to the
popularity of the Neo-Platonist teachers.19 Julian believed that he
received divinely inspired dreams and visions, which Bowersock states
was more typical of ancient men in his psychic disposition. 20
Bowersock comments later on Julians irrational behavior, specifically
with religious matters. The argument seems similar to that of Ricciotti,
who stated that
Julian was naturally so impetuous that he did
not always succeed in controlling his feelings.
Second, he was spiteful, always anxious to get
the last word in an argument, and not above
using contempt and sarcasm to humiliate his
adversaries. Such traits are found in his
worksMisopogon, Against the Galileans,
Against the Ignorant Cynics, and Against the
Cynic Heraclius.21
Bowersock states that the Misopogon sprang from these
irrational emotions, and his satire, the Caesars, was filled with pent up
anger towards Constantine, along with an intolerance of Christians and
Julians aversion to sex.22 Bowersock even states that due to Julians
complex nervous temperament, superstitious and calculation, along

19 Ibid. p. 16.
20 Ibid. p. 17.
21 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 148.
22 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 18.

16
with his easily wounded pride, Julian, not surprisingly had few friends.23
In his concluding notations of Julians personality, Bowersock states
that Julian had no mortal source of inspiration and motivation, and that
there could be no ties to humanity.24
In short, Bowersocks Julian is an irrational, religious fanatic, a
puritanical pagan, and a self-isolated ascetic. In lighter terms, Julian is
not personable, nor does he seem to be the kind of person one would
enjoy the company of. The strange feeling I have about this specific
portrayal of Julian not so much the description, but the author of said
description. Bowersock claimed that one of his goals was to not focus
on Julians emotional life, and yet most of these descriptions of Julians
personality stem from an emotional outlook. Julians irrational behavior
and self-isolation seem to come from a psychological assessment by
Bowersock. Along with this, Bowersock is not surprised that Julian had
few friends, considering his emotional irrationality and superstitious
nature. However, if this was the case, and Julian was not a personable
character, why then would people like Eusebia defend him from the
wrath of Constantius?
Bowersock stresses the image of Julian as a puritanical pagan
above many of the other images. This is evident within his chapter

23 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 19.
24 Ibid. p. 20.

17
titled Puritanical Pagan, in which Bowersock states that pagans, as
well as Christians, had grown accustomed to enjoying pleasures of life,
such as the theatre and chariot-races.25 According to Bowersock, it
would not be surprising that everyone was worried about a drastic
change in lifestyle due to Julians ascetic nature. Julian stressed that his
pagans had to adhere to certain rules, similar to that of Julians ascetic
lifestyle. This caused many pagans to fear that they too would be
forced to live as the ascetic pagan priest lived.

26

However, I find some

fault with this statement. To me, Julian was not stressing his own
lifestyle on the people. He was stressing a set of rules, similar to the
idea of rules for Christian priests. I must admit that there are notions in
the rules, such as the avoidance of Lampoons, which adhere to the
idea of Puritanism. However, as Rowland Smith points out, Julian was
not without humor. In fact, according to Smith, Julian most likely felt
that there was a time and place for humor, and his imposition of strict
rules upon pagan priests is a restricted group.27 I agree with Smith. The
description of the different Caesars within his satires shows a sense of
humor, similar to that of Aristophanes mocking of Socrates. Not to
mention the work was composed for the feast of the Saturnalia, a time
25 Ibid. p. 80.
26 Ibid. p. 80.
27 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the
Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (New York, New York:
Routledge, 1995). P. 14.

18
of revelry and comical mischief. Julian, being a pagan, must have
known these traditions, and so composed his satire.
Overall, I find that Bowersocks criticism of sources, along with his use
of numismatics to be the best features of his biography for Julian.
However, I do not agree with his portrayal of Julian, as a puritanical
pagan. Although Bowersocks evidence loosely gives him the image to
fit his goals, I find the intellectual biographies to show a more
historical Julian.
With Polymnia Athanassiadis reprint Julian: An Intellectual
Biography, a new approach is taken for the life of Julian. Athanassiadis
focus is to study the inner life of Julian, based around his philosophy
and religion. She refers to her work as a counterpart to Bowersocks
Julianic biography.28 One of the things Athanassiadi argues within her
book is that Julian was not consciously a Christian.29 This would mean
that Julian was not an apostate, since he could not turn away from
Christianity if he was not a Christian to begin with consciously.
The beginning of her book focuses on the concept of Hellenism.
Throughout her book, Athanassiadi explains how Neo-Platonism before
and during the reign of Julian was transformed into the religion Julian
created, Hellenism. This was why Julian imposed the edict against

28 Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual Biography (New York,

New York: Routledge, 1992). P. x.
29 Ibid. p. xii.

19
Christian teachers. It was a precaution to protect Hellenism.
Athanassiadi goes on in her chapters to stress that Julian created a new
sense of paideia, or Hellenistic culture. Julian had figured out a way to
combine Romanitas and Hellenism, to create a Greco-Roman religion.
Overall, Athanassiadi focuses much on what Julian did, rather
than who Julian was. Perhaps she wishes take glimpse of Julian based
upon these actions. She seems to praise Julian as a kind of religious
genius in the ability to create Hellenism as a religion on par with
Christianity. The view that Athanassiadi takes is that Julian combined
the Mithraic religion with the doctrine of Iamblichan Neo-Platonism, to
create a pagan monotheism. Athanassiadis proof of this comes from
Julians Hymn to King Helios. In this hymn, Julian connects Mithraism
and Plato to create Helios-Mithra, the culmination of Julians
Hellenism.30 However, she does place a lot of emphasis on Julians
initiation into the cult of Mithras, a criticism he states herself.31She
states that this may be a problem, and she is right. Although I find it
very probable that Julian would use the god Mithras, much as Aurelian
had done with his Sol Invictus, as a unifying god for the religion of
Hellenism, Julian is not a monotheist himself. He does praise HeliosMithras above other gods, but he still praises other gods such as
Cybele Magna Mater. With this is mind; Julian is not so much a
30 Ibid. p. 160.
31 Ibid. p. xiv.

20
monotheist as he is a henotheist since he praises one god, but
acknowledges other gods as well.
The fascinating aspect of Athanassiadis book is her connection
with Julian to the Byzantine. She goes out of her way to make a
connection that I do not think other scholars would dare to do.
However, she does a good job of explaining the connection. The
patriarch Antony II stated that the Imperium and the Church are
interconnected and united, a sentiment that Julian would have agreed
with.32 The Byzantines even after awhile began to refer to themselves
not only as Christians, but also as Greco-Romans. Athanassiadi
captures this idea well when she states Ammianus and Libanius final
resting place for Julian. Ammianus states that Julian should be brought
to Rome, to be blessed by the presence of the deified emperors, while
Libanius believes Julians ashes should be placed in the Academy of
Athens, next to Platos ashes.33 True sentiments of Hellenism, the
combination of Romanitas and Hellenism.

Finally, Rowland Smith, in his book, Julians Gods, gives a

dissenting opinion in the matter of Julians religion and philosophy.
Smith strictly goes against Bowersocks portrayal of Julian as a
lonesome puritanical pagan, fanatically imposing religion upon the
32 Ibid. p. 229.
33 Ibid. pgs. 231-232.

21
masses.34 Smith also does not agree with Athanassiadis view that
Julian was a pagan monotheist, but rather a pagan polytheist as the
title of his book states. The focus of Smiths book is to question
whether Julian was a philosopher, to look at Julians Neo-Platonist
theology, and a comprehensive approach to Julians ideas of paideia.
To give strength to these arguments, Smith turns to the writings
of Julian. From the writings of Julian, Smith states that Julian was not
philosopher, yet took on the appearance of a philosopher. In his letter
to Themistius, Julian declares that he was no expert at philosophy, but
rather a lover of philosophy.35 Smith therefore claims that Julians
concept of paideia does not stem from philosophy, although philosophy
was included, but rather included much rhetoric as well.36 Smith draws
from Julians love of Homer for his evidence. Although Julian states, he
was kept pure with the help of philosophy37, perhaps what he
considers philosophy may simply be the idea of Greek culture, which
in this case did included much of classic rhetoric.
However, much like Athanassiadis intellectual biography,
Smiths portrayal of Julian is difficult to discern. Overall, Smith tells us
34 Rowland Smith, Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the
Thought and Action of Julian the Apostate (New York, New York:
Routledge, 1995). P. 220.
35 Ibid. pgs. 16-17.
36 Ibid. pgs. 221.
37 Ibid. pgs. 25.

22
more so what Julian is not, rather than what Julian is. This is based
upon Smiths refutation of other Julian historians such as Bowersock
and Athanassiadi. Smith therefore states that Julian is not an isolated,
puritanical pagan with few friends, as Bowersock has portrayed Julian.
Early in his discussion of Julian as a writer, Smith states that Julian
wrote to many friends, not restricted to his theurgic mentors.38 In one
letter, Julian gives an estate he inherited to the rhetor Evagrius saying
Now I give it to you as a present, my dear-a
small one, but precious for coming from a
friend to a friend, From home, towards home,
as the learned Pindar states.39
From this statement, we can gather that Julian was a rather personable
man, who did have several friends, not just the ones surrounding his
deathbed. As to Athanassiadis Julian, Smith does not diverge too much
from her portrayal. He does show that Julian is not so much a lover of
Neo-Platonic philosophy, as he is a lover of Greek education, similar to
what he received, growing up. Considering his religion to be
monotheism or henotheism is false, according to Smith. Julian praises
more the one god, a defining feature of polytheism. However, this
should not be surprising to an intellectual biographer. If Julian would
want to recreate Hellenistic culture, or paideia, he would want to take
everything along with it, which would include a polytheistic religion.
38 Ibid. p. 10.
39 Ibid. p. 10.

23

Gathering evidence of Julians portrayal within intellectual

biographies is a difficult matter. The authors are rather indecisive of
how to portray Julian, unlike Bowersock who will come right out and
say that Julian was a puritanical pagan. Although I do not agree with
this portrayal of Julian, I still respect it being a definite portrayal. The
intellectual biographies on the other hand seem to be on the fence
in the discussion of who Julian was and more definite on what Julian
was not. I do agree, however, in Smiths portrayal as a man with a
personable sense of humor. I am sure that if Julian had composed his
Caesars in a place other than Antioch, it would have been a complete
hit. Unfortunately, his satire fell upon Christian ears.
The main criticisms for the intellectual biography come from its
focus. It is a difficult endeavor to try to divulge and persons psyche
from their writings, let alone other writings as well. Who is sure that
Julians psyche is present within his own writings, considering they
were mostly public, not private. However, this is not to say that Julians
feelings are not present within his works. On the contrary, Julian was
never afraid to say what he thought needed to be said, which is
evident from his polemics against the Cynics and Christians.

As for source work amongst these modern works, all of them

generally used similar literary sources. However, it is the method of

24
using those sources that I find scrutiny. For example, Ricciotti uses
similar literary sources as the other modern works in his bibliography,
but focuses on using the Christian historians such as Sozomen and
Theodoret. No doubt these accounts allow Ricciotti to paint is view of
Julian as a superstitious persecutor of Christians. Not only this, Ricciotti
takes the primary sources word without considering the world in which
the ancient author lives in. At least with accounts like Browning, the
world in which the source is written is taken into account. Therefore,
Julian is not seen as a lone superstitious pagan in a sea of devout
Christians. Rather, Julian is superstitious like many in Late Antiquity.
As Bowersock, I stated earlier that his criticism of sources grants
his work the standard label. For his literary sources, he acknowledges
that the sources for Julians life range from pagan to Christian, in
different ages. However, in order to locate the truest image of Julian,
Bowersock devises a method commonly used in historical Gospel
studies, the common source. Noting the similarities between similar
accounts, but by different authors, allows a historian make the
accusation that perhaps both of these authors used an earlier source
for their writings. However, this becomes an issue because of the
possibility that one of the similar authors could have been the only
source, and thus there is no original source to copy. In the case of
Julian, Bowersock notes that Zosimus and Ammianus accounts are
very similar, but Zosimus wrote his account in the 6th century, whereas

25
Ammianus wrote his account several decades after the death of Julian.
However, according to the patriarch Photius, Zosimus used Eunapius of
Sardis history of Julian as his main source.40 Now the reason why this is
important, is that Eunapius account, now extant, was written using a
memoir written by Oribasius, Julians personal physician. Therefore,
Bowersock claims that Ammianus wrote his account also with
Eunapius account as a main source, to fill in parts of the story
Ammianus did not witness. Using this knowledge it is possible to gain a
better view of the historical Julian. However, one problem remains
with this approach to the sources, the original source. Oribasius, being
one of Julians closest friends, may have the closely related account,
but he is also incredibly biased. He was not only one of Julians best
friends, but also according to some of the modern authors, an initiate
of the Mysteries. The chances of Oribasius having anything but praise
for the emperor Julian is slim to none. Therefore, it is critical to look at
this means of source work with a grain of salt, and not to take it at face
value.

Overall, each of these authors gives their own view of Julian, and each
one seems to conflict with the other. The very nature of the study of
the emperor Julian is controversial. The writers of his biographies have

40 G. W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate (Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1978). P. 3.

26
an agenda to stand by, as do many writers of today as well. Not only
this, Julian lived in a confusing, ambivalent time. The question of
whether he is Christian or not comes into play often, but only becomes
in issue concerning his conversion to paganism. Focus on his
theology or philosophy can create an even more convoluted mess of
the emperor Julian. In the span of decades, we as historians still cannot
agree on who Julian was. The legends set up by Christian apologists
cloud the vision of the emperor Julian, and so we are left with historical
doubts. To give just an example of this, Julians image has gone from
being a harbinger of times irrevocably past41, to a man who rather
than turn the clock back, created a new religion surrounding
Hellenism42. It can be seen that Julian studies are far from over, and I
believe that more can be done concerning the study Julian and the
rumors about him. Sources such as letters, not necessarily by Julian,
but concerning Julian are pieces of evidence that we as historians
should consider in order to gain a better view of what the people
thought of Julian. We gather from the ancient sources that he was
hated by most, if not all, the Christians, but what did people in Persia
think of him. Ricciotti, surprisingly, is the only modern author to
describe what the Persians thought of Julian. Quoting Libanius
41 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 258.
42 Polymnia Athanassiadi, Julian: An Intellectual Biography (New York,
New York: Routledge, 1992). P. 122.

27

They are said to have likened him to a

thunderbolt, drawing a thunderbolt and writing
his name near it; thereby indicating that he
had inflicted upon them calamities beyond the
power of mere human nature.43
I believe that more can be done with Julian studies concerning his
relationship with the Gauls and how the Persians viewed him. However,
Julian studies have always been fascinated by Julians relationship with
Neo-Platonism and his aversion to Christianity, and as such, will most
likely dominate the studies of Julian.

43 Abbot Giuseppe Ricciotti, Julian the Apostate (Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960). P. 257.

28

Bibliography
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. Julian: An Intellectual Biography. New York,
New York: Routledge, 1992.
Bowersock, G. W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1978.
Browning, Robert. The Emperor Julian. Los Angeles, California:
University of California Press, 1978.
Ricciotti, Abbot Giuseppe. Julian the Apostate. Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1960.
Smith, Rowland. Julian's Gods: Religion and Philosophy in the Thought
and Action of Julian the Apostate . New York, New York: Routledge,
1995.