_full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en dubbelklik nul hierna en zet 2 auteursnamen neer op die plek met and): 0 _full_articletitle_deel (kopregel rechts, vul hierna in): Julian’s Afterlife: The Reception of a Roman Emperor _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0
398 Rebenich
Chapter 13 Julian’s Afterlife. The Reception of a Roman Emperor
Stefan Rebenich
“Thou hast conquered, Galilean.” With these words on his lips the Roman em- peror Flavius Julianus, called Julian the Apostate, is said to have died in enemy territory on June 26th, 363 ad. The news of his death spread like wildfire. For some, a javelin thrown by a Saracen auxiliary in Persian service killed the mon- arch, for others it was the stroke of a sword of an unknown fighter that laid him low. Still others identifed a Christian hand, and a Byzantine chronographer believed that, at Christ’s behest, the holy Mercurius had slain the apostate.1 Perceptions of the emperor Julian were, and are, divided. While pagan intel- lectuals could mark a new era with the start of his rule, devout Christians rant- ed about the rabid dog and the stinking pig.2 Enlightened agnostics of the modern era transformed the enemy of the Cross into a shining proponent of their criticism of religion, and pious Catholics identified the persecutors of their period with the late Roman autocrat. Even our time knows ardent admir- ers and passionate opponents. On the one hand, Julian is the chief advocate for a global neo-paganism, which spreads its message on the internet, on the oth- er, he is a religious zealot, who failed in all respects. The following pages try to outline Julian’s Nachleben. This is a wide field, indeed. It should, however, be noted that I will not discuss his reception in the visual arts and music. But still I have to be both selective and reductive in my presentation and will explore the theme in five chapters. I will sketch various historical and literary portraits of Julian the Apostate, and reconstruct the trail of condemnation, reinterpretation, and glorification. These debates on the emperor illustrate moments of great importance in European intellectual his- tory. At the same time, Julian’s example highlights different modi of classical reception: deliberate disjunction, ostentatious spoliation, partial appropria- tion, and innovative transformation.
1 Cf. Theodoret, Church History 3.25.7; Ammianus 25.6.6; Libanius, Oration 18.272-75; Socrates, Church History 6.1.13; 6.2.2; Philostorgius, Church History 7.15a (= Artemii Passio 69) with Bleckmann/Stein, Philostorgius (→ iii.14), pp. 408-11; John Malalas, Chronicle 13, 23 Thurn. Still worth consulting is Büttner-Wobst, “Der Tod des Kaisers Julian” (→ i.15), pp. 561-80. 2 Ephraem, Hymns against Julian 2.1-9; 3.14-17; 4.9-10.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004416314_014 _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en dubbelklik nul hierna en zet 2 auteursnamen neer op die plek met and): 0 _full_articletitle_deel (kopregel rechts, vul hierna in): Julian’s Afterlife: The Reception of a Roman Emperor _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0
Julian’s Afterlife: The Reception of a Roman Emperor 399
1 Impiissimus imperator: Julian in the Middle Ages
Christian and pagan dichotomies have characterized the perception of the em- peror since late antiquity. Medieval and Byzantine authors interpreted Roman history as an integral part of the Christian history of salvation. At the peak of Rome’s power, Christ had been born, and the Imperium Romanum was there- fore thought to be the fourth and final empire before the Last Judgement. Con- stantine – the first Christian emperor – gave favour to Christianity, and his reign symbolised the triumphant power of the word of God. Julian, on the other hand, represented a bad character who could, in the end, not resist the victory of the Church. His name was to be found in learned historiography, vernacular tales, ardent polemics, and tedious plays. In popular collections of saints’ lives like the Golden Legend (Legenda aurea) of James of Voragine (c.1230-98) Julian featured as the diabolic antagonist of the holy men. The interpretation of Julian’s life was defined by the Catholic Church. The wicked apostate was a tyrant and heretic, the archetypal foe of the holy Chris- tian community, the intimidating example of the evil, the pestilent temper of mankind, and the paradigmatic predecessor of all dissidents of the true faith. Iulianista became a term of abuse which was employed in ecclesiastical po- lemics and theological invectives. Not only by bishops: the pope himself ac- cused dissenting clerics and recalcitrant emperors of being followers of the apostate. Julian held a particularly prominent place in the long line of pagan and heretic miscreants, perhaps only surpassed by Nero.3 Medieval authors reproduced their earlier sources. They described Julian’s youth and his oppression by Constantius, mentioned both his classical and Christian education, recounted his actions as Caesar in Gaul and as Augustus in the eastern part of the Empire. Julian was charged with having feigned the true faith and proving an arrant liar. As cleric or lector, he read the Bible in Christian services while being secretly devoted to pagan superstition and ask- ing idolaters about the future. Again and again writers reproduced the story, found in the Historia tripartita (“Tripartite History”), that Julian concealed his apostasy by wearing a monk’s tonsure.4 After Constantius’ death he openly showed his hostility against the Church and tried to exterminate Christianity. Numerous martyr stories revealed the cruelty of Julian, the despot and per- secutor. Landolfus Sagax, a Lombard historian who wrote a Historia Romana,
3 Cf. Philip, Julianus Apostata in der deutschen Literatur (→ i.16), pp. 9-14; Rosen, Julian (→ i.2), pp. 408-12. 4 Cassiodorus [-Epiphanius], Historia ecclesiastica tripartita 6.1.12; cf. Socrates, Church History 3.1.19.