The Historians of Late Antiquity (45 page)

Theodoret follows the other ecclesiastical historians in depicting Julian as a cunning persecutor, “wearing a mask of reasonableness, but preparing traps and snares” to trick men into apostasy (3.15.1). The emperor, he says, polluted the well water and the food for sale in Antioch by the admixture of sacrificial meat (3.15.2). He also relates the story of the repentant soldiers, who sprinted through the
city alarmed at their unwitting engagement in sacrifice. In his version, the soldiers are not let off so easily. Instead of simple dismissal, they were spared from execution only at the last minute and sent to a distant outpost of the empire (3.17). Their fate is similar to that suffered by Valentinian, who would later become emperor and then had the rank of tribune (3.16). Theodoret says that he was sprinkled by purifying water as he walked by a religious procession led by the emperor. In disgust, Valentinian punched the priest, and as a result was condemned to a desert outpost. Theodoret sees his elevation to emperor a year later as a sign of divine providence.

Orosius’ short passage on Julian’s religious policies may serve as a summary of some of the important themes of the church historians. Julian attacked Christianity “by subterfuge rather than by force,” and sought to convert men to paganism “by honors, rather than by tortures” (7.30). The only legal measure Orosius mentions is the school law, in face of which, he reassures his readers, Christians preferred to resign rather than to convert. Sozomen believed that Julian would have begun to openly persecute Christians, had he returned victorious from Persia, and Orosius provides an elaborated version of this forecast, claiming that Julian had ordered the construction of an amphitheater in Jerusalem where bishops, monks, and saints would be fed to the beasts upon his return. The prevention of these evil plans by Julian’s death is deemed further evidence of God’s providence.

Secular policy

While Julian’s religious policies set him apart most strikingly from the other emperors of late antiquity, his secular policies inspired a great deal of contemporary comment as well. Historians frequently evaluate his legal policies and practices. The good Roman emperor spent a large amount of his time hearing cases, and the quality of the emperor as a judge served as a traditional yardstick of the success of his rule. Julian’s reign began with an exceptional tribunal. Shortly after the death of Constantius, the new emperor conducted treason trials, in which several of Constantius’ former courtiers were condemned to exile or death. The trials were dominated by the military, whose support Julian needed to cement as quickly as possible (Bowersock 1978: 66–9; Thompson 1947a: 73–9). The historians also discuss his judging practices and philosophy in more mundane cases.

Other policies of Julian have been seen as deliberately archaizing, and part of a general attempt by the emperor to rule as a philosopher-king. Julian’s dismissal of eunuchs, cooks, and barbers from his staff was believed to reflect a “philosophical” orientation, and he offered positions in the imperial bureaucracy to intellectuals and writers. He restored certain privileges to the senate at Constantinople, and in his dealings with senators, he attempted to revive the forms and attitudes of the early imperial and republican period in Rome’s history. These revivals were seen alternately as inspired or affected by observers and historians.

Julian’s fiscal and legal policies seem to have been part of an attempt to restore wealth and autonomy to the local councils, or
curiae
, of the cities and towns of the Greek east (Pack 1986). The independent city had been central to classical civilization for centuries, but the sprawling imperial bureaucracy had made possible the evasion of curial responsibilities, and encouraged powerful men to pursue careers at the imperial rather than the local level. In response to these trends, Julian removed exemptions which had allowed the powerful to avoid service on city councils. He also restored property which had been taken into private or church hands to the control of the councils and attempted to lower taxes on the cities. These moves were often criticized, both because they interfered with the vested interests and privileges of the powerful, and also because they were seen, perhaps correctly, as veiled attacks on ecclesiastical power and on Christianity in general.

Ammianus reserves some of his most extravagant praise for Julian in his role as judge. The historian is willing to see at least some merit in the emperor’s suggestion that during his reign, it seemed that Justice herself had descended to earth (22.10.6, 25.4.19). Knowing that he was somewhat excitable, Ammianus tells us, Julian allowed himself to be corrected by his associates, and freely admitted when he had made a mistake. Julian is also praised for his careful judgement and willingness to closely examine all of the relevant facts (22.10.1). For Ammianus, however, the preeminent quality a judge should have is mercy, and he tells numerous anecdotes in which Julian displays this quality. Julian gave a sentence of exile rather than death to a rapist, and when the victim’s parents complained, he explained that an emperor’s mercy must be beyond the law (16.5.12). In a similar vein, he refrained from hearing a case in which a personal enemy of his would be a defendant until he had reconciled with the man (22.9.16–17). The sparing of the Alexandrians who had killed the bishop George could
be seen as an example of mercy rather than of Christian persecution (22.11.11). It is common knowledge that Julian was merciful even toward enemies who had conspired against him, says Ammianus, preferring the threat of the sword to its actual use (25.4.8–9).

Ammianus considered the trials held at Chalcedon shortly after Julian’s accession, at which various of Constantius’ adherents were unfairly punished, to be an exception to Julian’s general mildness (22.3). Instead, the trials, held in the presence of military officials, were examples more of prejudice than of impartiality. Certain of Constantius’ most notorious courtiers were properly punished with death, Ammianus felt, including the chamberlain Eusebius, the investigator Apodemius, and the notorious Paul “the Chain,” so named for his practice of stringing together series of accusations to prosecute the innocent. But others were condemned on little or no evidence, and the financial official Ursulus, who had been supportive of Julian when he was still Caesar, was condemned to death solely because he had earlier offended the generals with a stray comment. Julian tried to disassociate himself from this execution, but Ammianus refers to it as an “inexcusable crime.” The historian further condemns Julian for allowing Arbitio, who had been one of Constantius’ main henchmen and consistently inimical to Julian himself, to sit in judgement of others. This grievous misjudgement is blamed by Ammianus on Julian’s “timidity, or his ignorance of what is proper” in the early days of his reign (22.3.9).

After the trials, Julian purged the court of staff and attendants. Ammianus uses this purge as an opportunity for a digression on the corruptions of the palace staff, and the thirst for luxury and hatred for discipline that had accompanied the growth in personnel (cf. Libanius
or
. 18.130–41). Despite the corruption, Ammianus still criticizes the emperor’s actions, and complains that he ought to have kept a few attendants, “at least those known for good character and integrity” (22.4.2). Ammianus’ judgement reflects the general favor he felt toward the proper display of imperial dignity, which Julian sometimes lacked (Matthews 1989: 231–8).

Ammianus is also critical of Julian’s occasional lack of decorum in his public behavior. At the inauguration of the new consuls for the year 362, Julian attended on foot, which “some criticized as affected and tasteless” (22.7.1). Julian frequently sat in the senate house at Constantinople to hear cases, but once, when he heard that his old teacher, the philosopher Maximus of Ephesus, had arrived, he leapt up and escorted him in with a kiss. Ammianus saw this “improper display” as evidence that Julian was “excessively seeking
after empty glory” (22.7.3). Ammianus disliked and distrusted Maximus, one of the theurgists whom he portrays as responsible for encouraging Julian to ignore the omens and embark on the Persian campaign.

Ammianus consistently describes Julian as a tax cutter. He inspired “joyful dancing” in Gaul when he lowered tax rates from twenty-five to seven gold pieces per person (16.5). He clashed with Constantius’ men in Gaul not only over military policy but also over fiscal policy, most notably when he refused the plan of Florentius to impose an additional tax on the Gauls, who were already suffering under barbarian invasion (17.3). When Julian was given a province of his own to administer, he forbade officials to pressure the inhabitants to pay, with the unlikely result, according to Ammianus, that taxes were paid in full and in advance (17.3). In general, Julian’s support of lower taxation is seen as a personal virtue, the result of his lack of greediness (25.4.15; Matthews 1989: 239–41).

Ammianus is guardedly critical of some of Julian’s actions in his home town of Antioch. He feels that the emperor imposed price regulations during a food shortage simply to court popularity (22.14.1). These regulations were promulgated in the face of opposition from the powerful members of the council of Antioch. Ammianus does not support local authority, however, when it comes to granting additional power to councils to ensure that the wealthy and powerful serve. He objects vehemently no less than three times to Julian’s policy that removed exemptions from service from those who had special privileges, or had served in the army, or were not residents of the town in question (21.12.23, 22.9.12, 25.4.21). The frequent repetition suggests that Ammianus or those close to him were negatively affected by the policy.

Little from Eunapius survives on Julian’s policies beyond nonspecific panegyric. An excerpt from the
Suda
, which may be Eunapian in origin, praises Julian as a good judge whom criminals feared (
fr
. 25.1). It contains the interesting detail that Julian was a particularly effective judge because his pleasant nature and his habit of appearing frequently in public allowed citizens free access to speak to him regularly. Zosimus’ account is confused and may not provide reliable insight into Eunapius’ work, but certain features are suggestive (3.11.3). Zosimus credits Julian with the building of a harbor, a colonnade, and a library, to which he donated his own books. His claim that Julian showed great favor to Constantinople by allowing many new people to serve on the
curia
may indicate
another point of difference between Eunapius and Ammianus. The positive tone given to the description of this policy contrasts with Ammianus’ repeated denunciation of Julian’s removal of exemptions from potential members of the
curia
. Eunapius’ perspective is decidedly more local and urban than that of the imperial and cosmopolitan Ammianus.

Eutropius is very favorable toward Julian, whom he deems “an outstanding man who would have governed the state nobly if the fates had allowed” (10.16.2). Eutropius cites his erudition in both Greek and Latin. Julian’s fiscal responsibility and tax reductions receive particular praise. Eutropius also describes him as generous toward his friends, but less discriminating than an emperor ought to be, for some friends damaged his reputation. This cryptic notice may remind the reader of the scene recorded by Ammianus of Julian’s embrace of Maximus, who was blamed by Ammianus for the failure of Julian’s Persian invasion. Alternatively, Eutropius may have in mind subordinates like the emperor’s uncle Julian, whom Sozomen and Theodoret blamed for violence toward Christians.

While Rufinus is uninterested in Julian as a secular leader, Socrates presents several evaluations of his policies outside the religious sphere (3.1.48–60). As part of Julian’s courting of favor early in his reign, Socrates says, he had Eusebius, the chief eunuch, executed, and property that had been stolen by eunuchs was returned to the people. This event is separated from any account of the trials at Chalcedon, where it belongs, but instead is linked to Julian’s dismissal of eunuchs, cooks, and barbers from the palace. Socrates comments, as had Ammianus, that many criticized these dismissals as insufficiently respectful of the need for imperial pomp and dignity. The historian further remarks upon Julian’s archaic manner of governing, claiming that the emperor remained up all night writing speeches which he personally delivered in the senate, the first ruler since Julius Caesar to behave in this fashion. Socrates also mentions Julian’s reformation of the imperial courier service, which Ammianus had criticized as overburdened by church personnel shuttling between synods (21.16.18). In general Socrates finds this behavior affected and pretentious. He recapitulates the complaint of Ammianus and Eutropius that the emperor too often consorted with unworthy companions. For Socrates these are the professional philosophers, “many of whom were more to be identified by their worn out cloaks than by their learnedness,” who replaced the functionaries who were dismissed by Julian (3.1.56). Throughout this passage Socrates presents a running commentary
on the relationship between philosophy and Julian’s behavior, arguing both that Julian’s behavior was not truly philosophical and that true philosophy and imperial rule cannot coexist. Rather than praising the emperor for reducing taxes, as other historians had done, Socrates several times criticizes him both for special levies directed against the church and for turning a blind eye toward overzealous tax collection when the subjects of the taxman were Christian (3.13.8–10, 3.14.7–8). Socrates is also critical of Julian’s price edict in Antioch, the flaws of which he explains in fairly sophisticated terms (3.17.1–3).

Sozomen, in sharp contrast with Socrates, has completely removed any reference to Julian’s secular policies and accomplishments and focuses entirely on his religious policies and beliefs. One must speculate that Sozomen thought that the inclusion of such material in an ecclesiastical history was either inappropriate to the genre or was too favorable toward the Apostate. Theodoret too avoids any mention of Julian’s non-religious policies, although it is less surprising in his decidedly non-secular history.