Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Atticism, Homer, Neoplatonism, and Furstenspiegel: Julian's second panegyric on Constantius Curta, Florin Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1995; 36, 2; ProQuest pg. 177 Atticism, Homer, N eoplatonism, and Furstenspiegel: Julian's Second Panegyric on Constantius Florin Curta M ANY HISTORIANS of the reign of the Emperor Julian-a personality "fraught with more contradictions, tensions and inconsistencies than the average man» I-have attempted to answer a long-standing concern of Julianic histori­ ography: was Julian's policy, particularly his anti-Christian re­ action, the result of explicitly declared intentions? was it a care­ fully planned or an unpremeditated response adopted to unique historical circumstances? The issue of Julian's 'political pro­ gram' has found two different solutions. Koch, who first drew on Julian's works (Ep. 14, Ep. ad Ath.) for interpreting the pronunciamento of Paris, doubted that Julian's imperial aspira­ tions before his accession were anything other than mere dreams, like that described in one of his letters. Herzog, in a thorough comparison of the inscription at Trier with Julian's writings from his period in Gaul, noticed the peculiarly coded nature of the letters sent to his friends in the East and con­ cluded that Julian was more interested in his addressee's ability to decipher metaphors than in any explicit political project. Rosen, analyzing Julian's accession ceremony in Paris and the judicial and ideological foundation of his imperial power, emphasized Julian's ambiguous attitude in the pronunciamento.2 But Julian's fears and doubts as described by Ammianus I P. ATHANAssIADI,julian: An Intellectual Biography2 (London 1992: here­ after 'Athanassiadi') viii. Jul. Epp. will be cited after J. Bidez, ed., Oeuvres completes de l'empereur julien I (Paris 1932). 2 W. Koch, Kaiser julian der Abtrunnige. Seine jugend und Kriegsthaten bis zum Tode des Kaisers Constantius (331-361). Eine Quellenuntersuchung (Leipzig 1899) 448: "wiewohl sich seiber nicht bewuBt"; R. Herzog, "Zwei griechische Gedichte des 4. Jahrhunderts aus St. Maximin zu Trier," TrZ 12.1- 3 (1937) 129; K. Rosen, "Beobachtungen zur Erhebung Julians 360-361 n.Chr.," AC/ass 12 (1969) 143. 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS Marcellinus (22.2.3) may be a consequence of the historian's failure to combine successfully contrasting sources or to dissimulate his own concern with the obviously illegal character of the pronunciamento. Ammianus might have used the de­ scription of the events in Paris to express his own opinion, namely that Julian had aimed from the very beginning at ereptum imperium. 3 Julian had apparently learned from his brother Gallus' sad experience. According to Blockley, what separates the two particularly is Julian's prudent approach and "the careful planning" that led to his final rupture with Con­ stantius.4 Caltabiano also observed that Julian conscientiously prepared his proclamation by appointing his co-religionists to administrative offices.5 A second group of scholars has preferred a long-term approach. Negri first emphasized Julian's 'doctrine', and drew on the particular "norme direttive" in Julian's works to under­ stand his attempt to restore paganism. In his balanced biog­ raphy, Bidez finds three phases of Julian's political activity: restoration, reform, and anti-Christian policy. He thinks that Julian did not follow a single political platform, but many programs, one after the other, continually adjusting his ideas to social circumstances and influenced not only by his experi­ ence and political thinking, but also by his entourage. 6 De Labriolle considers Julian's pastoral letters (Epp. 84a, 86, 88, 89a-b) to be a genuine program of religious policy. Webb be­ lieves that Julian's monetary policy as emperor followed the program divulged in Ep. ad Ath. 5.287a, and Condurachi thinks that the principles of financial policy were already promulgated in Julian's first panegyric on Constantius. Similarly, Dvornik J For this interpretation of Ammianus see A. Selem, "Interpretazione di Amm. Marcell. XX, 8, 4," RendIstLomb 106 (1972) 105. In contrast, Aurelius Victor's attitude to the pronunciamento in Paris was overtly hostile. Cf C. E. V. Nixon, "Aurelius Victor and Julian," CP 86 (1991) 122ff. ~ R. C. Blockley, "Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constant ius II," Latomus 31 (1972) 467. 5 M. Caltabiano, "II comportamento di Giuliano in Gallia verso i suoi funzionari," Acme 32 (1979) 4.36. Julian is concerned with the legitimacy of his accession particularly at Ep. ad Atb. and Ep. 26 to Maximus; cf her "La propaganda di Giuliano nelle 'Lettere agli Ateniesi'," ContribulilstSlAnt 2 (1974) 130f. 6 G. Negri, L'imperatore Giuliano l'Apostata. Studio storico (Milan 1901) 187;J. Bidez, La vie de l'empereur Julien (Paris 1930) 310-14 ("Revirements ou plan pn!conc;u?"). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 179 argued that "not only did Julian have theories, but he tested them."7 Julian's three panegyrics on the Emperor Constantius and his wife Eusebia have generally been regarded as mere rhetorical exercises without value and therefore irrelevant to the study of Julian's political program. 8 There is still no special examination of Julian's Second Panegyric on Constantius (Or. 3 Bidez) from the viewpoint of political philosophy, as a Furstenspiege/ de­ vised for propagandistic use. In attempting to clarify the nature of the speech, I shall first examine two critical concepts: Atticism and its rhetoric. As a cultural phenomenon, Atticism emerged in the second century as a general tendency to reassess the Classical heritage, espe­ cially within and under the influence of the Second Sophistic. To define Atticism accurately is difficult because of the equivocal ancient terminology and the exclusively linguistic modern approach to the phenomenon. Atticism could thus be opposed to koine or to Asianism (el Norden's polemics against Rohde) or as a literary and linguistic norm (Wilamowitz).9 Therefore, as Frosen noticed, "investigators have not distin­ guished performance from competence. "10 The revival of the 'purity' of the Attic dialect was a reaction against Hellenistic koine and its "creole literature" as an expression of the interests and tastes of the lower classes. Atticism re-introduced older linguistic forms, particularly the syntax of the optative mood and the dual number. It could therefore be detected easily in specific stylistic markers, for literary works were now pro- 7 P. de Labriolle, La reaction pai"nne. Etude sur la polimique anti-chrhienne du [" au VI' siecle (Paris 1942) 371, 388; P. H. Webb, "Coinage of the Reign of Julian the Philosopher," N C 39 (1910) 238; E. Condurachi, "La politi que financiere de I'empereur Julien," BHAcRoum 22.2 (1941) 23; F. Dvornik, Early Christisan and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background (Washington 1966) II 664. B Koch (supra n.2) 440: "die zwei Lobreden auf den Kaiser, die durch die ObermaB von Schmeichelei uns bisweilen anekeln, lasse ich hier unberiihrt." See more recently J. Bouffartique, "Julien par Julien," in R. Braun and J. Richer, edd., L 'empereur Julien. De l'histoire a la ligende (331-1715) (Paris 1978) 18: "Ies deplorables Eloges de Constance, dans lesquels il £latte sans vergogne celui qu'il tient pourtant pour Ie responsable du massacre de sa farnille." Koch was followed by Bidez (supra n.6) 310f, but rejected by J. Geffcken, Kaiser Julianus (Leipzig 1914) 47. 9 J. Frosen, Prolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in the First Centuries A. D. The Problem of Koine and Atticism (Helsinki 1974) 27f. 10 Frosen (supra n.9) 28. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS duced for a specific audience. As all potential producers or readers of literature must have possessed a 'standard level' of rhetorical education, the opposite of 'Atticist language' was non­ normative language, which corresponded in practice to freedom of choice, style, and the variation inherent in it.ll A Greek speaker of the first Christian centuries had at least three basic options or independent linguistic repertories from which to choose: (1) the 'in-group language' for face-to-face relation­ ships (within primary groups); (2) the 'out-group language' in both sroken and written form (commercial, administrative, and officia documents); (3) the language of specialized communica­ tion (literature, high education). To that extent, one could consider Atticism as a koine of the Greek-speaking, highly cultured members of Late Roman society, from Constan­ tinople and the easern provinces to Italy.12 Standardization of language produced an extremely regulated communication system. Within the third repertory, particularly in the case of rhetorical literature, there were further options that eventually defined what is known as 'style' ,13 Rhetoric, seen here in its post-Ciceronian guise, is a par­ ticular form of communication in which persuasion is a pos­ sible but not mandatory goal, thus emphasizing the methods of achieving aesthetic perfection. This definition is based on a semiological model in which rhetoric is a complex production of signs, "involving the choice of given probable premises, the disputation of rhetorical syllogisms (or other forms of many­ valued logic) and the necessary 'clothing' of expressions with rhetorical figures." 14 Because this kind of rhetoric always had a large and rather diverse audience, it usually aimed at persuasion by appealing to the imagination and emotions, and sometimes 11 Frosen (supra n.9) 105: "In contrast with this, Atticistic style may be associated with the principle of imitation; it is not connected with Atticistic linguistic structure." 12 Frosen (supra n.9) 184f; G. Matino, "Per 10 studio del greco tardoantico. III: La sintasi dei casi neUe Epistole di Giuliano," AAPont 29 (1980) 34~: For similar phenomena in Latin, non-Christian epics see H. Hoffmann, "Uber­ legungen zu einer Theorie der nichtchristlichen Epik der lateinischen Spatantike," Philologus 132 (1988) 116. 13 H. Plett, Textwissenschaft und Textanalyse: Semiotik, Linguistik, Rhetorik (Heidelberg 1975) 140ff. \4 U. Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington 1976) 278. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 181 deliberately left room for ambiguity. IS Prose encomIa of the Imperial age represent this kind of rhetoric, in which orna­ mentation is first applied to ideas, then to words. In C. H eraclium 13-14 Julian argues that all speeches are comprised of thought (oulvola) and its expression (A.E~l<;); figured thoughts (ta EOXllJlaUoIlEva) involve such rhetorical devices as "ea OEJlVa. or "ea a.1tEllcpalva. 16 In the Second Panegyric on Constantius (Or. 3.78d) he explains that the ingenious sophists ... do but report to you your own opinions (OUlVoT1I1a'ta) and depict them in fine phrases ('tOtS QVOllaol) like a dress of many colors, and cast them into the mould of agreeable rhythms and forms (pu9llots Kal oX~llaOlv), and bring them forth for you as though they had invented something newY Consequently, we are concerned here with rhetorical figures as deviant linguistic-aesthetic structures, whose mechanism Eco has described. 18 The semiological approach also postulates an area of compe­ tence common to both sender and addressee produced by the speech itself as an information and communication system. 19 My analysis is based on two main considerations: the speech as signifier (analyzing the production procedures of rhetorical effects) and the speech as signified, either as plot (the system of events in an artificial-artistic order) or as fabula (the system of events in their temporal and causal order that the author uses as his material: Segre [supra n.19] 5). The present analysis of Julian's Second Panegyric is also based on a descriptive model that takes into consideration not only rhetorical deviation but also homogeneity, and emphasizes both the profusion and the frequency and distribution of rhetorical figures. It is accordingly a semiological and (neo- )rhetorical 15 V. Florescu, Retorica ~i neoretorica: geneza, evolutie, perspective (Bu­ charest 1973) 43. 16 J. BOUFFARTIGUE, L 'empereur Julien et fa culture de son temps (Paris 1992: hereafter 'Bouffartigue') 514. 17 Bouffartigue 515: Julian invokes here an abbreviated version of Her­ mogenes' rhetoric. 18 Eco (supra n.14) 284f; cr. Plett (supra n.D) 142: "deviam-asthetische Sprachstruktur ... 19 M. Corti, An Introduction to Literary Semiotics, trr. M. Bogat and A. Mandelbaum (Bloomington 1978) 7; C. Segre. Structures and Time. Narration. Poetry, Models, tr. J. Meddemmen (Chicago 1979) 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS model, based on five aesthetic-linguistic categories: phonologi­ cal (prosodical), morphological (within words), syntactical (with­ in sentences), semantic (meaning-figures), and pragmatic (situa­ tional) figures. My analysis of Atticism in the Second Pane­ gyric is based on seventy-one stylistic markers,20 in a com­ parison with the four orations llrpi j)UCHAduc; of Dio Chrysos­ tom and Julian's First Panegyric on Constantius (Or. 1). Dio's orations are often considered to have been Julian's model for the Second Panegyric.21 Certainly Julian had read Dio (cf Or. 7.212c), but his oration was not a simple imitation of Dio, for a third source seems to have inspired both. 22 At first glance, Julian's Second Panegyric involves a very simple idea: the use of Homeric parallels to praise Constantius. From the very beginning, Agamemnon and Achilles are compared to Constantius and Julian (Or. 3.1), and a Homeric counterpart is found for every major event of Constantius' life and career (3.2-22). A long digression (3.23-32) describes Julian's true king (as if he were now concerned with proving his point); a clumsy application of this royal model to Constantius (3.32-39) concludes the panegyric. To clarify the political meaning hidden behind this structure, I shall first address the question of Julian's specific usc of Atti­ cism and Homeric citations as stylistic strategies for contrasting the portrait of the true king and the rest of the encomium. I shall then examine the narrative structure in comparison with the traditional list of topics, illustrated in the third-century rhetorical treatises of Menander Rhetor, and focus on the extended central section describing Julian's ideal king, inspired by Neoplatonist elements. Finally, I shall argue that the Second Panegyric may be seen as a veritable political program of the future emperor, especially when considered in an historical context and compared with other contemporary views, such as Themistius'. 20 w. SCHMID, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnas bis auf den zweiten Philostratus I (Stuttgart 1887: hereafter 'Schmid') 82-191. 21 W. C. WRIGHT, The Emperor Julian's Relation to the New Sophistic and Neoplatonism (London 1896: hereafter 'Wright') 30; K. Praechter, "Dion Chrysostomos als QueUe Julians," ArchfGeschdPhilos 5 (1892) 42-51; R. Asmus, "Julian und Dio Chrysostomos," JbGymTauberbischofsheim (1895). 22 L. Fran, ~(l(JlAE'i. " Hermes 87 (1959) 428; C. Vatin, "Les empereurs du IV· siecle a Delphes," BCf! 86 (1962) 231. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS noting that no Homeric citation and almost no citation marker associated with Homer occur within chapters 23 and 32. (I shall return below to the significance of this peculiarity.) Stylistic analysis thus reveals that almost all Atticistic markers cluster outside chapters 23 and 32, with the exception of paronomasia (the agglomeration of unitary expressions to make a concept clearer), epiphoneme, and the rhetorical question in negative form-all widely used in philosophical rather than rhetorical demonstration. Although the 'neutral' zone appears to be enriched by vocabulary from everyday language or Christian usage, along with citations from Dio Chrysostom, the first part (chapters 1-22) is characterized by various Atticistic markers, incl uding a considerable presence of ironical meta­ phors and a massive concentration of Homeric citations. To discern the rationale for this polarity, we should now con­ centrate on upper levels of analysis. II. Topics and the Structure of the Encomium It is not difficult to see that, compared with the First Pane­ gyric, the Second is 'abnormal', particularly because the descrip­ tion of Constantius' military deeds is constantly interrupted by comments on the Homeric parallels or Plato's works. Between the descriptions of Constantius' military deeds and his cardinal virtues, the Second Panegyric includes a long digression on the true king. The political significance of this 'abnormally' struc­ tured panegyric is only revealed when contrasted with the rhetorical treatises of Menander Rhetor, a major source for Late Roman epideictic oratory and theory. 43 The first chapter of Menander's second treatise (pp.77-95) describes the structure of the imperial oration. Menander advises panegyrists to begin with the topic of the emperor's 1ta'tpi~, then to consider his family (y£vo~), including his parents and ancestors. After dis- 4) D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, edd. and trr., Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981). A good survey of Menander's epideictic theory in L. Pernot, "Les topoi de l'eloge chez Menandros Ie Rheteur," REG 99 (1986) 33-53. The first to notice that the Second Panegyric follws the rules of the encomium were R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Romer (Leipzig 1855) 338ff, and F. Boulenger, L'empereur Julien et la rhitorique grecque (Lille 1917) 17ff; cf Dvornik (supra n.7) 660; M. Mazzo, "Filosofia religiosa ed 'Imperium' in Giuliano," in B. Gentili, ed., Giuliano Imperatore (=Atti del con'lJegno della S.l.S.A.c. Messina, 3 aprile 1984 [Urbino 1986]) 59. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 189 posing of these two introductory topics, the oration should investigate the circumstances of the emperor's birth (YEV£OU;), e.g. divine signs, his mother's dreams before the delivery, and any other remarkable events. Then the panegyric should say something about the emperor's nature (cpOOU;) and beauty. Next come nurture (uva.'tpocpil), which treats all precociously manifested qualities; education (1ta.t8da.); then intellectual skills. Under the topic of accomplishments (E1tt't1l8d)j.la.'ta.) the orator should focus on the emperor's character. The most important topics of the imperial panegyric are the actions (1t p a~£ u;). Menander strongly recommends (2.373.5-8, p.85) classifying the 1tpa~£u; by the four cardinal virtues (courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom). The panegyric should end with Fortune ('tUXll), a topic that aims to demonstrate that the emperor has been vouchsafed the gift of children and that all his friends wish him well (2.272.28-31, p.93). One could hardly fail to notice striking differences when comparing the structure of Julian's two panegyrics on Constan­ tius with Menander's rules. The First Panegyric combines Me­ nander's third through the sixth topics in only three chapters (8-10 [Or. lAd]), but remains close to the list. 44 The Second Panegyric, however, shows a divergent structure: the topics of 1ta.'tpi<;, yEV£Ot<;. 1ta.t8da.. and f1tt't1l8£Uj.la.'ta. completely disap­ pear. Julian moves from CPUOt<; (ch. 3) directly to 1tpa~£l<; (chapters 4-5), laying particular emphasis on virtues in time of war. The topic of 1tpa~£l<; is divided into two parts by the extensive digression (23-32) on the true king. At the end of the encomium (chapter 34), Julian returns to the topics of y£vo<; and 1tpa~n<;. completely unsuitable in this part of the panegyric, and ostensibly ignores 'tUXll. Although he carefully announces this project in the First Panegyric, Julian now states explicitly that he is not going to pay too much attention to rhetorical rules (Or. 3.64a): "For I declare that I make no claim to be an expert in their art (o'ih£ fYW 'twv 't£Xvwv j.l£'ta.1tOLOUj.la.t: literally, 'I do 44 Menander also recommends that rhetors insert in the prooemium an introductory idea to the main heading, "in the form of the speaker's uncertainty about the point with which to begin the encomium" (2.369.13-17, p.79). Libanius also used the rhetorical technique of presenting the contents of the oration in the prooemium: Bouffartigue 516. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS not accept the rules'), and one who has not agreed to abide by certain rules has the right to neglect them. "45 It is possible that the way in which Julian insists on the 'rules' might suggest that he refers to rules other than those regulating topics in the imperial encomium.46 In any case, by ignoring the topic of epitedeumata, Julian avoids referring to Constantius' character and repeatedly interrupts the description of Cons tan­ tius' military deeds with Homeric comparisons that are not always to the emperor's advantage. He thus separates the military deeds from the four cardinal virtues and deflects the course of his encomium to purely 'theoretical' aspects of the true king. Adapting the structure of the encomium to social or political circumstances was a common practice in the fourth century. Claudius Mamertinus' panegyric on Julian deliberately avoids the topic of genos, because of its inappropriateness to Constan­ tine the Great and his sons, along with the issue of dynastic legitimacy-a principle that Julian would later distrust, if not completely reject. 47 The novelty in the Second Panegyric is Julian's concern with the difference between his eulogy and the 'clever rhetoricians', who only "admire the fact that a man is born of ancestors who had power or were kings" (Or. 3.93c). But those wooers of the rich and noble emperor are Julian's models in the First Panegyric, namely Themistius and Libanius.48 Recently, at the peak of his political career, Themis­ tius had been admitted to the senate of Constantinople, his 45 Julian's play with 'rhetorical rules' in his Misopogon indicates a para­ doxical rhetorical strategy: normally an encomium to the emperor should belong to Menander's genre of the ~aO'lA.\1(o~ A6'Yo~. Julian, however, entirely changes the structure of his panegyric and slanders his citizens by joining them in what should have been their slandering panegyric of him. See M. W. Gleason, "Festive Satire: Julian's Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch," JRS 76 (1986) 106. 46 At fp. ad Ath. (5.282a-b) Julian explicitly states that the most difficult problem he faced in Gaul as Constantius' Caesar was that his areas of competence were not clearly enough defined. He had finally asked the emperor to provide him with written rules ('YpUlt'toU~ u~Liv OO~ roaltEP v6~w\)~). 47 Rosen (supra n.2) 139f; cf R. C. Blockley, "The Panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus on the Emperor Julian," AJP 93 (1972) 445f. In Libanius's case, even the density of rhetorical figures depends upon the addressee of the panegyric: see P. Petit, "Recherches sur la publication et la diffusion des discours de Libanius," Historia 5 (1956) 492. 48 Julian had studied for his First Panegyric Thernist. Or. 1 and 2 (written in 350 and 355 respectively) and Liban. Or. 59 (written in 348/349): see Bidez (supra n.1) 5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 191 oration providing an opportunity for his expression of gratitude toward Constantius. The emperor awarded him a statue and a verse inscription,49 and Themistius became a very rich man precisely at this time. 50 Libanius was awarded a large estate for his eulogy (Liban. Or. 1.80; PLRE 1 505). All deviations from Menander's 'normal' structure of the en­ comium prepare the audience for the long digression-the portrait of the true king-between chapters 23 and 32. Julian employs an extraordinarily subtle technique for 'decelerating' the logical sequence of topics. He inserts digressions, first of two (4-5), then of one (10), and eventually of four chapters (14-17), following four (6-9), then three (11-13), and finally two chapters (18-19) respectively,51 The nine chapters on the true king function as an 'anti-encomium'. After chapter 32, Menander's scheme is abandoned and the panegyric follows a completely 'aberrant' course. Digressions, as the Russian Formalists and particularly Shklovsky, have shown, "fulfill three different functions ... to permit the author to insert new material into his work ... to slow up the course of the action ... to create contrasts. "52 Digressions in the Second Panegyric may be short comments, like that considered by Bidez to be the encomium's terminus a quo. Describing the composition of Magnentius' army that was to fight against Constantius, Julian refers to his campaign against the Franks in the spring of 358 (Or. 3.56b): "1 only know that its coasts [the Ocean's] are peopled by tribes of barbarians who are not easy to subdue and are far more energetic than any other race, and 1 know it not merely from hearsay, on which it is never safe to rely, but 1 have it from personal experience." 53 Julian creates contrasts by simply introducing a few words as a short comment on a Homeric citation (Or. 3.80b): And virtue they say is implanted in the soul and makes it happy, and kingly, yes, by Zeus, and statesmanlike and 49 Themist. Or. 4.54b; Liban. Ep. 66; G. Dagron, "L'empire romain d'Orient au IV· siecle et les traditions politiques de l'hellcnisme. Le temoignage de Themistius," Tra'1.lMem 3 (1968) 56 11.128. 50 Jul. Or. l.22a-b; Themist. Or. 23.288d, 291c; PLRE 1890. 51 Cf Men. Rhet. 2.374.6-18, p.87; see Bouffartigue 533. 52 V. B. Shklovsky, Una teoria della prosa (Bari 1966) 184f, quoted by Segre (supra n.19) 16. 53 E. von Borries, "Iulianos (Apostata)," RE 10 (1919) 37; Bidcz (supra n.6) 156-59. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS gifted with true generalship, and generous and truly wealthy, not because it possesses the Colophonian treasures of gold, nor all the stone threshold of the Far-Darter contained within in the old days, in times of peace, when the fortunes of Greece had not yet fallen (on: ~v apea. 'ta. 'trov 'EAA:ftV&V 1tpO:Ylla:ta). The 'Hellenes' of the Second Panegyric could only refer to those in his Ep. 26 to Eutherius, where he summoned the addressee to sacrifice not only for a single man (the new em­ peror), but for the whole community of the Hellenes as well (OUx iHtEP EvOC; avOpoc;, a'A.'A.' iHtEP tOU KOtVOU trov 'E'A.'A.l)VWV).54 The phrase refers to the pagans in contrast with Christians and already announces to the addressee Julian's sympathy for the world and culture represented by the "stone threshold of the Far-Darter." The role of this allusion is crucial for understand­ ing the Second Panegyric as Julian's first political program. One of the longest digressions outside the interval of chapters 23 to 32 concerns the religious duties of the true king. Com­ paring Constantius with Homeric heroes, Julian alludes to Hektor's withdrawal from battle at II. 6.102ff to urge the Trojan women to offer sacrifice to Athena (Or. 3.68b-c): And yet if in person he had besought the goddess before the temple, with the elders, he would have received an oracular answer, for it is only proper, in my opinion, that a general or king should always serve the god with the appointed ritual, like a priest or interpreter of oracles, and not neglect this duty or think it more fitting for another, and depute it as though he thought such a service beneath his own dignity.55 54 M. Caltabiano, L 'epistolario di Giuliano imperatore (Naples 1991) 99f, 155, 326; see also Jul. Or. 4.147a; Greg. Naz. 4 (=PG XXXV 536a); ef W. Koch, ·Sur Ie sens de quelques mots et expressions chez Julien," RBPhil 7 (1928) 539; R. Dostalova, ·Christentum und Hellenismus. 2ur IIerausbildung einer neuen kulturellen Identitat im 4. Jahrhundert," ByzSl 44 (1982) 5ff; A. Cameron, ·Julian and Hellenism, n AneW 24.1 (1993) 28: Themistius never uses the term -Hellenes" for pagans. 55 The idea that the emperor or his priests should not abandon their religious duty to others appears in one of Julian's pastoral letters (Ep. 84.431b). The association between priest and prophet also occurs in a letter for the gover­ nor of Caria (Ep. 88.451b-c): i:yeo 'tOtVUV, EltElOTl'tEP dflt KU'tU fll: 'tU lta'tplu flE'Ym; apxlEpEu~. tAaxOV OE vuv KUt 'tOU ~l&uflUiou ltPOCPll'tEllflv. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 193 Julian refers to the duties of the emperor as ponti/ex maxi­ mus: taking care of divine law, preserving the ancient cults and eliminating forbidden ones (i.e., those dangerous for the state), controlling sacrifices and all elements of religious service, super­ vising other such cultic elements as divination, and controlling the sacerdotal hierarchy. 56 After giving his interpretation of Plato's Laws, Julian returns to the emperor's religious duties (Or.3.70d): Again, no man must neglect the traditional form of wor­ ship or lightly regard this method of paying honor to the higher power ('tou KP£l't'tOVO~), but rather consider that to be virtuous is to be scrupulously devout. For Piety is the child of Justice, and that Justice is a characteristic of the more di­ vine type of soul is obvious to all who discuss such matters. Beyond Homeric parallels, Julian's lanJ;uage is Neoplatonic: the supreme god becomes 'to KPElHffiV (cj. Porph. Abst. 3), and Julian's concept of the emperor's religious duties appears to be more political than sacerdotal; for not only is Piety the child of Justice but also "law is the child of justice, the sacred and truly divine adjunct of the most mighty god" (toU Jl£ytow'U 8£Ou, Or. 3.89a). Performing the religious duties of the ideal king makes the emperor 8£OcptAi]<; ("a favorite of the gods"), a recurrent epithet in the Second Panegyric (Or. 3.80b, 84a, 90c) and, sig­ nificantly, associated with uvavEffi'tll<; 'tCOV tEPCOV (templorum res­ taurator) in the inscription from ThessalonikiY Plato may seem, like Homer, to be used for decorating the encomium, 58 but there is a note of particular esteem at Or. 3.68c: 56 R. Asmus, "Eine Encyklika Julians des Abtriinnigen und ihre Vor­ laufer," ZKG 16 (1896) 45ff. The title also occurs in Julian's inscription of Serdica (l LS 8945): see A. N. Oikonomides, "Ancient Inscriptions Recording the Restoration of Greco-Roman Shrines by the Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus (361-363 A.D.)," AneW 15 (1987) 40. 57 Oikonomides (supra n.56) 40; see also A. Negev, "The Inscription of the Emperor Julian at Ma'ayan Barukh," IE] 19 (1960) 170-73. 58 Or. 3.69b-c: "But it may be that I am wearying you with these doctrines of his with which I sprinkle by own utterances in small quantities, as with salt or gold dust. For salt makes our food more agreeable, and gold enhances an effect to the eye. But Plato's doctrines (nAO:tffiVO<; A.6yOt) produce both effects. For as we listen to them they give more pleasure than salt to the sense, and they have a wonderful power of sweetly nourishing and cleansing the sou!." Rhetorical use of Plato's works was, however, not incompatible with Neoplatonism, because (following Plotinus) all Neoplatonists used Plato not only as a philosopher, but also as a source of literary images. See Bouffartigue 562. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS For there I think I may without offence adapt slightly Plato's language where he says that the man, and especially the king, best equipped for this life is he who depends on God for all that relates to happiness (tov 9£ov aVTWtrl'tat mxv'ta 'ta 1tpo<; £UOalj.lOVlav) and does not depend on other men, whose actions, whether good or bad, are liable to force him and his affairs out of the straight path. The idea that the aya8o<;; aviJp should abandon himself to God played a crucial role in Julian's objection to dynastic legitimacy on the basis of the charismatic nature of the imperial person, a key element of Julian's propaganda. 59 But there is an important digression on the aya8o<;; aviJp in his comparison with the sun (Or. 3.80c-d): Indeed it seems to me that this possession [the virtue of an aya9o<; aVTJp] bears the same relation to the soul as its light to the sun. For often men have stolen the votive offerings of the Sun and destroyed his temples and gone their way, and some have been punished, and others let alone as not worthy of the punishment that leads to amendment. But his light no one ever takes from the sun, not even the moon when in their conjunctions she oversteps his disk, or when she takes his rays to herself, and often, as the saying is, turns midday into night. Nor is he deprived of his light when he illumines the moon in her station opposite to himself and shares with her his own nature, nor when he fills with light and day this great and wonderful universe. The idea that the emperor, participating in God's nature, is aya86<;; and radiates apE'tiJ is a fundamental element of Julian's concept of theocratic power. 60 Neoplatonists were dedicated to the worship of the Sun: Porphyry had already composed a treatise on the subject and Iamblichus regularly celebrated the 59 Rosen (supra n.2) 138; 1. Labriola, "Direttive della propaganda dell' im­ peratore Giuliano," in 1. Lana, ed., II "Giuliano l'Apostata" di Augusto Rostagni (:Atti dell' incontro di studi di Mazzano del 18 ottobre 1981 [Turin 1983]) 61; cf Caltabiano "Propaganda" (supra n.s) 133. The idea is explicitly formulated at Ep. 28.382b-c and occurs in a prayer attributed to Julian (Baroccianus 133 f.161 v) in F. Cumont, "Fragments inedits de Julien," RPhil 16 (1892) 163ff. For Libanus' attitude see Petit (supra n.47) 477f. 60 Labriola (supra n.59) 63, and "In margine al Secondo Panegirico a Cos­ tanzo," in Gentili (supra n.43) 126: this idea originates in both Plato's political thinking and in late Hellenistic political theories, for which the sun is an image of the god and an analogy for the philosopher-king's Logos. (:1 Iambl. Myst.6.6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 195 feast of the god. 61 Solar theocracy is the key element of Julian's religious thinking. But unlike his Neoplatonist predecessors, who paid little attention to its political implications, solar theocracy became the unifying principle of Julian's political ideology.62 The solar disk in the Second Panegyric is neither the central deity of Iamblichus' theological system, the transcen­ dental Helios who rules the 1CO(JJlO<; vOT\'to<;, nor its lower emanation, which Julian calls vou<;, the center of the intelligible (VOEPOi) gods' realm, but the visible sun, through which Helios could operate in the material world. What Julian, evidently influenced by Iamblichean doctrines, emphasizes in the Second Panegyric is the heartening and vigorous solar ray's extension to the limits of what Plotinus had called 'to Jlft OV or 'to a1tEtpov ("the unlimited "), a critical point where it jeopardizes its own existence if it continues towards the unlimited. 63 But Julian also sees Helios as the divine origin of his family: at C. H eraclium (Or. 7) 234c, Hermes introduces Julian to his ancestor Helios ('tou'tO, EqlT\, (Jov E(Jnv EICYOVOV).64 Constantine the Great, a man "let alone as not worthy of the punishment that leads to amendment," is denounced precisely for abandoning the solar cult and embracing Christianity (Or. 7.228d, 229a-b). 65 That 61 Athanassiadi 153; Bouffartigue 359: Julian might have used an unknown treatise on the sun written by Iamblichus. 62 E. Corsini, "L'imperatore Giuliano tra cristianesimo e neoplatonismo," in Lana (supra n.59) 51: "vero chi ave di volta di tutto it sistema di pensiero." 63 Or. 11.134.a-b, 133c; Labriola (supra n.59) 70; R. E. Witt, "J amblichus as Forerunner of Julian," in H. Dorrie, ed., De Jamblique a Proclus (=Entretiens Hardt 21 [Vandreuvres-Geneva 1975]) 52; J. C. Foussard, "Julien philosophe," in R. Braun and J. Richer, edd., L'empereur Julien. De l'histoire ala legende (331-1715) (Paris 1978) 205; B.-M. Nasstrom, a Mother of the Gods and Men. Some Aspects of the Religious Thoughts in Emperor Julian's Discourse on the Mother of the Gods (Lund 1990) 47. This trinitary system is illustrated by the iconographic program of the golden bowl from the Pietroasa hoard found in Romania: see M. von Heland, The Golden Bowl from Pietroasa (Stockholm 1973) 88. 64 Sol Invictus is the deity invoked for Julian's salvation in an inscription from North Africa: see N. Ferchiou, "A propos de trois inscriptions inedites provenant de la Tunisie centrale," in A. Mastino, ed., L 'Africa romana (=Atti del V Convegno di studio, Sassari, 11-13 dicembre 1987 [Sassari 1988]) 143f. 65 See J. Maurice, "La dynastie solaire des seconds Flaviens," RA 17 (1911) 377-83; M. Simon, "Mithras et les empereurs," in U. Bianchi, ed., Mysteria Mithrae. Proceedings of the International Seminar on the Religio-Historical Character of Roman Mithraism, with Particular Reference to Roman and astian Sources, Rome and Ostia 28-31 March 1978 (=EPRO 80 [Leiden 1979]) 422. For Julian's attitude towards Constantine and his family see J. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS Julian's own experience underlies references to the partial hid­ ing or darkening of the sun is suggested in his use of "eclipse" in allusions to the period before his 'conversion' to Neoplatonism (Or. 11.131a).66 It could hardly escape notice, however, that Julian alludes to recent events, probably the eclipse of 15 March 359.61 If, as suggested, he had interpreted these omens in con­ nection with the rise and fall of a Roman emperor, then we should date the Second Panegyric between March and October 359, later than Bidez thought.68 Julian's second encomium on Constantius thus includes at least two series of elements signifying content. One (with almost no indicative value) is Menander's scheme of rhetorical topics; but the other, ensuing from a sequence of superficially articulated comments and digressions, interacts with it. The key notions here make up a subsidiary, asyntactical oration based on isolated concepts rather than on their relationships or devel­ opments, forming the 'anti-oration' mentioned above, which Vogt, "Kaiser Julian und seinen Oheim Constantin der Grossen," Historia 4 (1955) 339-52. Julian was not alone in referring to the solar dynasty of the Neo-Flavians: Himerius made a point of recalling the solar origins of the imperial house when addressing Constantius: "Oh brightest eye of your race, you who play the same role toward it, as your ancestor Helios often did towards you" (quoted at Athanassiadi 180). 66 See M. Papthanassiou, • Astronomie, Astrologie und Physik in der Rede Kaiser Julians auf Konig Helios," Klio 72 (1990) 498. Julian compares the rapidity of his own campaign against Constantius with Helios: Or. 5.269d, 11.l46c; cf Labriola (supra n.59) 63 n.16. 67 O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fur die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart 1919) 153; cf 201: 1tOAMllCl~ may also refer to the eclipse of 28 May 355, when "the evil demon who had devised Uulian's] previous troubles" (Or. 2.118c) inter­ fered, and Julian ran the risk of death (Or. 6.260a). Only after" a dea ex machina appeared in the person of the empress Eusebia" (Athanassiadi 46) could Julian sail for Athens. See also Bidez (supra n.6) 108-11. 68 Bidez (supra n.48) 109. The terminus post quem is Amida's fall on 6 Octo­ ber 359, if the Persian king's epUoo~ lCUt o.1tOVOlU at Or. 3.67a refer to the terms of Shapur II's embassy to Constantius in 358 (Amm. Marc. 17.5.5). When writing the Second Panegyric, Julian certainly did not know of the Persians' preparations for war in spring 359, which preceded the siege and fall of Amida (Amm. Marc. 17.4.2). See Demarolle (supra n.41) 98 n.16. The events preceding the pronunciamento of Paris in Ammianus 20.3 exhibit a report of an unexpected astral phenomenon, a solar eclipse, which augured the divine will. For Julian's attitude toward omens in general see Ep. 12: Et 01: flT] OCPUAAoflat, lCUt OllflEtOV 'ti )lOl, l,VilCU 'toiho 'to flEPO~ EYPUCPOV, tY£VE'tO eml)lUOloV. Cf Nasstrom (supra n.63) 104. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 197 permanently undermines the 'explicit oration' (ef Segre [supra n.19] 13.). Whom does this 'anti-oration' address? In the first chapters of the Second Panegyric, the rhetor speaks directly to the emperor, using the second person singular of the personal pronoun, along with such rhetorical formulas as "my beloved Emperor" (Or. 3.50c). The audience ("my hearers," Or. 3.54a) appears in chapters 4 to 11, where Julian uses the second person plural of the personal pronoun. The second person singular is temporarily reintroduced in chapter 11; but through seven other chapters (11-18) narration is neutral, impersonal. The "hearers" reappear in chapter 18 and remain preeminent until the end. This further suggests that the 'audience', and not Constantius, is Julian's main addressee in more than two-thirds of his encomium. Moreover, Julian orates to his "hearers," not to Constantius, when describing the true king. III. Neoplatonism and 'Political Theology' Julian, like Socrates, sees virtue as the supreme criterion for testing the true king (Or. 80a-b); under the influence of Dio Chrysostom (Or. 3.32ff, 38ff) he was led to the belief that only virtue constitutes kingship. For this reason he rejected dynastic legitimacy (Or. 81a-82c) and thus the old Roman principle of congruence between virtue and noble lineage. Themistius also believed that a true king is not acclaimed by the army, but needs o.PE'tl), for he is in fact proclaimed by the divine will. 69 In contrast with Themistius, Julian drew directly on Neoplatonic philosophy as the only solid theoretical basis for political power.lo Neoplatonism offered Julian both a theoretical basis for the salvation of the Empire and also an opportunity for unifying philosophy and religion. 71 Frequent citation of Plato 69 Themist. Or. 6; see V. Valdenberg, "Discours politiques de Thcmistius dans leurs rapports avec l'antiquite," Byzantion 1 (1924) 563; ef. A Morisi, "Richerche sull' ideologia imperiale a Bisanzio," A eme 16 (1963) 137: "L'eccezionalita di Giuliano sta sollo neHe ricerca dei mezzi per l'attualizione di un pensiero che non era suo soltanto." 70 A. Ehrhardt, "The Political Philosophy of Neo-Platonism,", in M. Lauria et aL edd., Studi in onore di Vieenzo Arangio-Ruiz, net XL V anna del suo insegnamento (Naples 1953) I 457. 71 J. M. Alonso-Nunez, "En tomo del neoplatonismo del emperador Juli­ ano," HispAnt 3 (1973) 184: "Juliano no es, ni mucho menos, un fil6sofo original, sino un divulgador de doctrinas neoplatonicas con intencion politica. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS indicates Julian's Neoplatonic education, though Julian does not share the general Neoplatonist enthusiasm for the Parmenides. 72 In Julian's writings Plato's work is represented almost exclu­ sively in its religious, political, and moral aspects. 73 So also Iamblichus: his name, frequently cited, is usually accompanied by the epithet e£io~ that later Neoplatonists constantly applied to him.74 Julian views the Apamean as his main source of philo­ sophical knowledge and ranks him first among all philos­ ophers (Plato included),75 But Julian's philosophy is not, as Su significaci6n fundamental dentro el movimiento neoplatonico reside en la conexi6n de neoplatonismo y politica." See also Labriolle (supra n.7) 431, following A. von Gutschmied in considering Neoplatonism a counter-religion to Christianity. For the relationship between philosophy and religion in Julian's Neoplatonic thought, see more recently J. M. Hidalgo de la Vega, -Teologia politica de Juliano como expresi6n de la controversia paganismo­ cristianismo en el siglo IV," in A G. Blanco and]. M. BLizquez Martinez, edd., Antiguedad y cristianismo VII: Cristianismo y aculturaci6n en tiempos del Imperio Romano (Murcia 1990) 181. For R. T. Wallis (Neo-Platonism [London 1972] 96) Julian's basis for re-establishing the ancient pagan religion was nothing more than Iamblichean Neoplatonism; in contrast, J. Anton (-Theourgia-demiourgia: A Controversial Issue in Hellenistic Thought and Religion," in R. T. Wallis and J. Bregman, edd., Neoplatonism and Gnosticism [Albany 1992] 22) does not believe that Julian's political philosophy was indebted to Plato's thought. 72 Bouffartigue 173; Foussard (supra n.63) 203: as there is no apophatic sys­ tem and no reference to Parmenides-the basis of henology and the founda­ tion of Neoplatonism-in Julian'S writings, he could hardly be included among members of the Neoplatonist school. 73 Bouffartigue 197: had Julian been the only evidence for Platonic writings, Plato would have appeared as -l'auteur d'une vaste somme sur Ie salut in­ dividuel et collectif de I'homme obtenu selon Ie plan de Dieu. Une Bible, en quelque sorte"; Athanassiadi 170: Julian is the only exception in the history of the Neoplatonist school who imbibed the spirit of Plato's political works. 74 Bouffartigue 76. In contrast, Plotinus is cited only once by name, and his influence on Julian does not seem to have been substantial: see Witt (supra n.63) 48; Bouffartigue 77; contra, ]. PUIGGALI, -La demonologie de l'empereur Julien etudiee en elle-meme et dans ses rapports avec celie de Saloustios," EtCI 50 (1982: hereafter 'Puiggali') 307. 75 Jul. Ep. 12: Kat auto~ OE ltEpt J.lEv 'IaJ.l~AtXoV tv tAaVepomla. Only the latter per­ mits the king to resemble god (OJlOlo)O"lC; 7tPOC; eEOV).93 EU(J£pna manifests itself in the cult; it confers on the true king the leading role in performing religious rites. ~t1caw(Juvll is the quality that makes a true king a good judge, and 7tp~o'tllC; reveals itself in times of war, when the king is more a general than a ruler, in his attitude toward the vanquished. Only q>tAaVepo)7tla manifests itself in kingship and it is the only virtue responsible for making a true king. For Themistius, qllAaVepo)7tla is thus the ruler's crucial virtue, as it is also the supreme quality of God. 94 Themistius shared these ideas with the Church Fathers. Atha­ nasius also maintains that only qnAave po)7tla can make a true king. 95 Both Julian's panegyrics give priority to av~pda, followed in the First Panegyric by ~l1(aLO(Juvll. (JO)

lAcxv8pumlcx is the quality that gives the king the right to modi­ fy the law, to ameliorate it, a principle that is clearly embodied 99 Cf Ep. 98a.453b; Athanassiadi 175, who compares Julian's definition of the law with Manuel I Cornnenus' chrysobul of 1159. 100 Cf Or. S.270a: disrespect for laws is aO'E~ll~a; cf Amm. Marc. 22.10.6£, 15.4.19f. 101 Themist. Or. 5.64b-c; L.J. Daly, "Themistius' Plea for Religious Toler­ ance," GRBS 12 (1971) 69. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 207 in Justinian's decrees. lo2 Themistius explicitly asserts (Or. 8.118d-19a) the emperor's right to legislate as a counterpart of the existing legislation, an idea first voiced by Cons tan tine's laws (Cod. Theod. 1.2.2f; cf 1.2.7 [Constantius II]). Quite another concept of law ensues from Julian's Second Panegyric: the law is the child of Dike and not the "law inani­ mate," as official propaganda had it (Athanassiadi 64). Because the true king, according to Neoplatonist doctrine, should be able to create an earthly order resembling the divine by intro­ ducing Euvol1ia-the identity between VOl-lO<; and AOYO<;­ Julian views the ruler as the only human able to ameliorate the mundane political order by shaping it after its divine mode1. lo3 Julian's concept of law will later be expressed in his legislation: quae diu servata sunt permanebunt (Cod. Theod. 5.20.1). As Dagron (127) noticed, Julian's views are not simply a reaction against Eusebius' or Themistius' "political theology" (Mazza's phrase: 92), but reflect the fundamental political change of the Late Roman Empire: the notion of legitimacy gradually replaces the already dying idea of legality. Permanently contemplating God, the true king is therefore always I1ryaA,o",uxo<;, for he strives to imitate the divine arche­ type. This theory of the relations between ruler and god in­ spired all fourth-century authors, both pagans and Christians. lo4 For nearly all of them, there is no question of kinship between God and ruler, as in the Second Panegyric, but only of likeness, for God always remains an intangible archetype. Themistius be­ lieves (Or. 6.78d-79b) that God has three fundamental aspects: eternal life, unlimited power, and permanent q>lA,aV8pw1ria towards mankind. Only the latter could be imitated by the per­ fect king, who would thus become similar to God. In contrast, Julian always considered himself God's agent on earth. He justified his rebellion against Constantius by means of divine will and viewed himself as legally proclaimed by the gods (Or. 5.275b-77a, 285d; cf Ep. 28; Or. 6.266c-67a.). The image is again reversed: a true king knows he is akin (not similar) to God 102 Dagron 132; Daly (suJNa n.94) 25f. 103 Ehrhardt 480; Morisi (supra n.69) 123; J. M. Candau Moron, "Teocracia y Ley: la imagen de la realeza en Juliano el Apostata," in J. C. Candau Moron, G. Fernando, and R. de Verger Antonio, edd., La imagen de La realeza en La Antiguedad (Madrid 1988) 186. 104 Thernist. Or. 15.188a-b; Euseb. Laud. Const. 1; cf Dagron 135: the same idea inspired Constantine's iconography after 325. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 JULIAN'S SECOND PANEGYRIC ON CONSTANTIUS and yields supremacy to Him (Or. 3.70d); in Neoplatonic terms, God exerts power in the political field through his son (not delegate) on earth. Only then can the true king have the possibility of using his cpl.Aav8po>1tla to moderate punishments. For Themistius, however, in order to be a perfect king, the ruler can only imitate God in practicing Cjll.Aav8po>1tta. Julian's solution from a theoretical viewpoint is profoundly original: as supreme magistrate, the king is nevertheless of divine origin. Knowing that he is akin to god, he accepts being limited by Law, which is His emanation, and to rule as God's "son and descendant." This interpretation is also the basis of Julian's refutation in his Letter to Themistius: the king should rule in accordance with the divine part of his being and eliminate any mundane limitations. lOS Julian does not consider himself an image, a copy of the deity, but rather a part of the divine principle, a ~Aa(J'tTUta of God Helios (Or. 7.232d; cf 98). This opposition of attitudes appears also in the debate over the king's religious functions. Without ever explicitly referring to the religious duties of the emperor, Themistius attempts to relocate them in a more general field. Because philosophy in his view provides the only degree of resemblance with God al­ lowed to human beings (Or. 2.32d), emperors should be praised as champions of the paideia (Or. 4.54a-b). When alluding to the organization of a new cult, Themistius employs 1toAl'tfUw8al. (Dagron 180). Religion is thus ranked among the citizen's re­ sponsibilities-the city, as politically opposed to the Empire, is the basic religious unit. Hence Themistius' argument (Or. 5) that Julian had precisely mistaken the Empire for a 1toAl'tEta. Julian believes in contrast that as "priest and prophet" the king should serve the god with the appointed ritual and not neglect his duty or depute it to another. In other words, the king should be first of all a ponti/ex maxim us, a function that gives him the right to control all the religious life of the Empire (Leipoldt 26). The Second Panegyric opposes the model of the king-priest to Themistius' king-philosopher. Julian is thus the first emperor to provide an articulate justification for a theo­ cratic conception of kingship (Athanassiadi 75). 105 Ep. 6.260d; cf Mazza 70. See J. M. Candau Moron, "La filosofia politica de Juliano," Habis 17 (1986) 90: the Letter to Themistius is "una exposicion, y casi diriamos un manifiesto, de los principios politicos de Juliano." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FLORIN CURTA 209 IV. Fiirstenspiegel and Imperial Manifesto In emphasizing sender-receiver relationships in the Second Panegyric, we have to admit that analyzing its fabula has clearly shown very few, if any, parallels between Constantius and the portrait of the true king. Except military qualities ( Or. 3.95a-d), none of the ideal ruler's attributes returns in the last part of the encomium: neither "priest and prophet," good administrator, or "soldier's friend,» nor Law's guardian or highest magistrate. The portrayal of Constantius seems divorced from any theo­ retical basis. In fact, the Second Panegyric contrasts two imperial portraits: Constantius' is permanently parodied and the quasi-impersonal portrait of the true king corresponds to Julian's political aspirations. 106 The Second Panegyric, however, is not a mere lampoon, for the special importance of some of the attributes of the ideal ruler can hardly deceive: Julian is clearly concerned with the problems of imperial authority. His second encomium for Constantius is therefore a genuine political manifesto veiled in rhetoric.107 Did the Second Panegyric have the consequences Julian might have hoped? His attempt to style himself an enthroned philosopher did not escape unobserved. The inhabitants of the little-known city lasos in Asia Minor praised him in a dedica­ tion: 'tOY EK ca (University of Bucharest) for their support and helpful comments on a longer, much earlier version of this paper. I would also like to thank Dr Paul Maier (Western Michigan University) and Dr Christos Evangeliou (Towson State University), who made many valuable corrections and comments.