IvIBRARY 
 
 OF THF. 
 
 University of California. 
 
 OTF"T OF" 
 
 Received V^^;^^ . iSg^_. ^ 
 
 Accession ^o./ O J O 
 
 Class No. 
 
Si< 
 
 'i^ 
 
PAULO SHOREY 
 AIAAKTPA 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/emperorjuliansreOOwrigrich 
 
THE EMPEROR JULIAN'S RELATION 
 TO THE NEW SOPHISTIC AND 
 NEO-PLATONISM : WITH A 
 STUDY OF HIS STYLE 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS, LITERATURE 
 
 AND SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO 
 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OP 
 
 DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 WILMEE CAVE FRANCE 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE & CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE, LONDON 
 1896 
 
Z7U/7 
 
 73 lio 
 
Mvj 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 PAGK 
 
 Julian and the New Sophistic 1 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 Julian's Relation to Philosophy 38 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 Julian's Style and Vocabulary C7 
 
 APPENDIX I 
 The Letters 93 
 
 APPENDIX I£ 
 
 Julian and Dio 101 
 
PEEFACE 
 
 The chief aim of the following studies has been, as 
 the title indicates, to give a more complete presenta- 
 tion of Julian's relation to the Ehetoric and Philo- 
 sophy of the fourth Christian century than has 
 hitherto been attempted. Beyond the brief notices 
 given in histories of literature and philosophy, I 
 know of no other systematic treatment of Julian's 
 relation to the New Sophistic, and there seems to 
 have been no previous discussion of his style. 
 
 Whatever interest the fragments contra Christianos 
 possess for the student of divinity, they have little 
 significance for the student of literature, and have 
 not been taken into consideration here. Special 
 ackowledgements to books consulted have been made 
 in the proper places ; I have reserved for this place 
 the acknowledgement of my general indebtedness to 
 Zeller's History of Philosophy, to the monograph of 
 M. Naville, Julien VApostat et sa philosojphie du 
 Paganisme, to Boissier's La fin du Paganisme, and to 
 Vacherot's Ecole d'Alexandrie. 
 
VI PKEFACE 
 
 Of those under whose direction my studies have 
 been pursued I wish to express my thanks to Professor 
 E. A. Sonnenschein of the Mason Science College, to 
 Professor J. P. Postgate of Trinity College, Cambridge, 
 to Professor H. W. Smyth of Bryn Mawr College, to 
 Professor W. G. Hale of the University of Chicago, 
 and, especially, to Professor Paul Shorey of the Uni- 
 versity of Chicago, who suggested the topic of this dis- 
 sertation and to whose counsel and criticism I am 
 greatly indebted. 
 
 WILMER CAVE FRANCE. 
 
 University op Chicago. 
 
CHAPTEK I 
 
 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 Among the writers who rank as the classics of the 
 fourth Christian century the Emperor Julian holds 
 the first place. His peculiar position as leader of the 
 revival which was the last systematic effort of the 
 Hellenists to rescue Greek culture from the indif- 
 ference of Christianity is enough of itself to secure 
 for his works an attention which a mere writer of 
 panegyrics could not arouse. The Sophists Libanius, 
 Themistius, and Himerius owe their importance to 
 the fact that their Letters and Orations help the 
 student to reconstruct the surroundings and in- 
 fluences that worked on Julian. But apart from 
 their interest for the historian of Hellenism, Julian's 
 writings hold a definite place in the history of the 
 development of Greek prose. To show what that 
 place is, and what is Julian's relation to the literary 
 movement of the fourth century, a brief retrospect 
 will be necessary. 
 
 The fall of Athens took from the Greeks the 
 independence and the stirring political life that had 
 inspired their orators and historians. For the next 
 century and a half Greek literature, like Greece her- 
 self, has no history. Not that there was any cessa- 
 
 B 
 
2 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 tion of literary activity, but it was exercised in narrow 
 fields, and the philosophers, historians, grammarians, 
 and polyhistors, who are the links between the earlier 
 intellectual life of Greece and its revival under the 
 Greco-Eoman Empire, have little significance for the 
 history of Greek prose. Yet they serve to show how 
 rapid was its decay. For philosophical prose, the 
 first sign of that decay had been Aristotle's indif- 
 ference to style — an indifference that, with Epicurus, 
 turned to something like hostility.^ 
 
 The decline of oratory was no less sudden. Early 
 in the third century B.C. Hegesias of Magnesia stands 
 for the degradation of oratorical prose, and the over- 
 throw of the Demosthenic tradition of a periodic and 
 rhythmical style. '^ 
 
 It is significant of the causes of the general feeble- 
 ness, that the first noteworthy name is that of an 
 historian, and still more significant of the source of 
 the coming revival is the fact that Polybius went to 
 Eoman history for a theme. To the student of Greek 
 literature Polybius is mainly interesting as personi- 
 
 * See Spengel, Uebe?' das Studium der Rhetorik bei den Alien, 
 Miinchen, 1842, p. 3. 
 
 * Of the writings of Hegesias we possess only the few fragments 
 preserved in the quotations of his critics ; but subsequent writers on 
 Khetoric are unanimous in condemnation of his jerky style ; his 
 effort to imitate Lysias appears to have been a complete failure. 
 Strabo, xiv. p. 648 : 6 pijTWp ts ^p|e ixAXiara. rov ^Amavov Xeyojxevov 
 Trapacpdeipas rh KaOeffTTjKhs €0os to 'Attlk6u. Cic. Orator, § 226 : 
 quam perverse fugiens Hegesias, dum ille quoque imitari Lysiam 
 volt . . . saltat incidens particulas. For a parody of Hegesias' style, 
 Cic. ad Att. xii. 6, 1, and for a criticism of it, Dion. Hal. De Comp. 
 p. 122 ; and ibid. 30, where, speaking of the neglect of rh avvTiBeyai, 
 he says, oySels {pero 5e7v avayKa7ov avrh tiuai ov5i avjiL^dWeaOai ri Tcp 
 KdWd Twu \6ycav, ^vKapxov Kiyui Ka\ 'HyriTiav rhv MoiyvrjTa. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 3 
 
 fying the relations between Greece and Eome which 
 make the year 146 b.c. a memorable date. He was 
 one of the first of the Greeks to come into contact 
 with the political life of Eome, and he lived before 
 the frankly expressed admiration of the Eomans, and 
 their emulation of Greek literature, had begun to 
 arouse in the degenerate Greeks a feeling of supe- 
 riority on the score of their past.^ But while his 
 freedom from this affectation, and his appreciation of 
 the Eoman genius, distinguish Polybius, he illus- 
 trates, on another side, the lowest level of Greek 
 historical prose, judged by the Attic standard of 
 vocabulary and style. He wrote the KoLvrj, as might 
 be expected of a Megalopolitan who had had no Attic 
 training in Ehetoric, and had lived but little in Greece. 
 It was because of this neglect of Attic models that his 
 inartistic and unequal prose found so little favour 
 with Dionysius of Halicarnassus.^ 
 
 The century between Polybius and Dionysius saw 
 the development of all that was best in Latin litera- 
 ture, but for Greek prose it is as blank of distin- 
 guished names as the period preceding Polybius. 
 Nevertheless in oratory, at any rate, things had not 
 been standing still. Even when Polybius was writing 
 in the Kolptj, schools of Ehetoric were flourishing at 
 Athens. It is probable that Asianism then still held 
 the field, but early in the second century before Christ 
 
 ' Hence his popularity with the Eomans. Cic. De Rep. ii. 14 : 
 Polybium nostrum quo nemo fuit in exquirendis temporibus dili- 
 gentior. 
 
 2 Dion. Hal, De Comp. 4. That Dionysius did not hesitate to go to 
 Polybius for his subject-matter, Kaibel has shown in Hermes 20 : 
 ' Dionysius v. Halikarnassus.' 
 
 B 2 
 
4' JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 its supremacy was challenged, and its waning popu- 
 larity is marked by the appearance, about this time, 
 of the Tex v7) of Hermagoras of Temnos. Herma- 
 goras, by inaugurating a reaction in favour of scientific 
 Ehetoric, paved the way for scientific Atticism and a 
 school of style. ^ Yet he did not set up an ideal of 
 the regeneration of Greek oratory through Atticism, 
 such as later inspired Dionysius. The importance of 
 Hermagoras lies in the fact that he made the first 
 effort, since Aristotle and Theophrastus, to give to 
 Ehetoric a distinct system and function, and so to 
 raise it to the dignity of a science, and that in ad- 
 vising the study of ancient models, he drew attention 
 to style as well as to subject-matter. ^ 
 
 The history of Greek prose in the last half- century 
 of the Eoman Eepublic is the history of the development 
 of two schools of oratory, the Attic and the Asianic.^ 
 The direct or Greek evidences of that development we 
 are not permitted to see. It is from Latin writers 
 that we must judge of the character of Asianism and 
 Atticism at this period. Cicero wrote of them from 
 the point of view of a Eoman orator, and Quintilian 
 as a critic of Eoman oratory, and a discussion of 
 
 • The Asianic orators were usually men of little rhetorical train- 
 ing. Dion. Ha}. De Comp.'p. 206: &vdpa}voi. rvs fxlv ijKvKKiov iraiSeias 
 6.rreipoi, rh 5' ayopalov ttjs pr)TopiKris fxipos oSoO re koX idxvns X^P^^ 
 €7riT7}5€uoj/Tey. Cf. Blass, Griech. Bered. p. 56. 
 
 - On Hermagoras, see Volkmann, Bhetorik, p. 5. Blass, Griech. 
 Bered. von A. bis A. pp. 84-8. Jebb, Attic Orators, ii. 444-5. 
 Wilkins, Introduction to Cic. De Oratore, p. 44, and Hermagoras, 
 von Georg Thiele, Strassburg, 1893. 
 
 3 The words Attic and Asianic, as has been frequently pointed 
 out, should be taken to denote a difference of ideal, and have little 
 geographical significance ; the Atticists themselves came chiefly from 
 Asia. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 5 
 
 Attic and Asianic rhetoric here becomes, necessarily, a 
 discussion of the attitude of Cicero and his contem- 
 poraries to these opposing tendencies, such as would 
 be out of place in these introductory remarks.^ It is 
 enough to note that the Eoman schools of oratory, of 
 which Hortensius, the follower of the Asianic school, 
 and the Atticist, Calvus, are the typical representa- 
 tives, must have had their counterparts in the schools 
 of Greece and Asia Minor. It was at Eome, the 
 literary centre of the world, that the struggle between 
 them was carried on ; and of the influence exercised 
 on Greek oratory by Eoman, at this time, we can 
 judge from the Greek critic, Dionysius of Halicar- 
 nassus. His importance for the study of the classic 
 period of Greek literature and of the literature of the 
 revival can hardly be over-estimated. In the early 
 years of the Eoman Empire he wrote, at Eome, an 
 appreciation of the Greek prose masterpieces, which 
 has formed the basis of all subsequent criticism. But, 
 though none can have realised more clearly than did 
 Dionysius, that the Golden Age of Greek literature 
 could never return, because the conditions by which 
 it had been inspired could never be renewed, he was 
 far from contenting himself with the contemplation of 
 a glorious past. His hopes for the future of Greek 
 prose, and his high ideal of what that prose must be, 
 connect Dionysius closely with the literary activity of 
 the whole Greco-Eoman period. He imagined, with 
 the author of the irspl yy^ovs^'^ that a sincere and 
 
 ' See Blass, Griech. Bered. von A, bis A. pp. 104 sqq. 
 ^ A^ict. irepl v^ovs, xiii. : /cot toi/tou ye airpl^ e;tc6;Lie0a rod ffKonov 
 (i.e. TTJs Tuv €fjLrrpo(rd€y fieydAwy avyypa(pewy Ka\ iroiTjToiv fxiixijfffws 
 
6 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 sedulous imitation of the Greek masterpieces might 
 lead to the development of a Greek prose which should 
 have something of the spirit as well as the form of its 
 models. Like Polybius, Dionysius was unfettered by 
 the later conventional literary attitude towards the 
 Eomans. It was the improvement in Greek oratory 
 which led him to hope for a revival of Greek prose, 
 and that improvement, as he frankly admits, was due 
 to Eome.^ So rapid had been the change, that 
 Dionysius expressed the hope that the next generation 
 might see the last of that OsarpLKrj koX avdyco'yos 
 prjTopLfcrj.'^ The question how far his ideals of Greek 
 prose were realised by the writers who came after him 
 is one of the most interesting in the history of the 
 later Greek literature, but it can hardly be more 
 than suggested here. That he exercised any direct 
 influence on subsequent Greek prose seems impro- 
 bable, for he is hardly mentioned except by Quin- 
 lilian.^ 
 
 The first century of the "Roman Empire is a 
 transition period in Greek literature. Dionysius, 
 writing under Augustus, recognised that the revival, 
 of which he thought he saw the beginning, must 
 
 re Koi ^T7\ci(rea>s). ttoAaoj yap aWoTpi<i> 6(o<popovvTai irvevfiaTi rhy avrhv 
 rponov hv Koi r] Tlvdia, K.r.X. Dion. Hal. Vett. Scrijptt. Censura, i. : 7} 
 yhp i\)vxh TOW avayivaxTKovTOS virh rris avvexovs irapaTTjp-fjffews t^v 
 bfxoi6T7\ra tov x^'P^'-'^'^^po^ icpfXKerai. 
 
 ' Dion. Hal. Dc Orr. Antt. 3 : aiVta 5' oi^ai koX apxh ttjs TO(ravrr,s 
 juerajSoATjs iyevero 7] Travrcav Kparovcra 'Pco/xtj, irphs kaur)]v avayKa^ovaa 
 ras '6\as irdXeis airofiheireLV. Cf. Quint. X. 5, 17. 
 
 2 Dion. Hal. loc. cit. 
 
 ' Eohde, Ehein. Mus. 41, finds no trace of the influence of 
 Dionysius. Hermogenes mentions him only in passing {de Id. p. 
 342, 10, Spengel). Cf. however Anon, apud Spengel, B. G. i. 460: 
 £^iovv(Tios tp Kau6va &v tis eKiroi 8iKala)s rrjs irepl (iT}TopiK^v jticAtT^js. 
 
JULIAN A^^D THE NEAV SOPHISTIC 7 
 
 depend on Koman patronage and encouragement. 
 Under the Emperors who followed Augustus such a 
 revival had little chance of success. But, with the 
 more propitious times, the rara temporum felicitas that 
 dawned with Nerva and Trajan, we meet the first 
 representatives of a line of Greek prose writers which 
 continues, with hardly a break, into the last years of 
 the Eoman Empire. 
 
 In Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom the ideal of 
 Dionysius is more nearly realised than in any late 
 Greek writer, except Lucian. Plutarch, by reason of 
 his Platonic studies, and Dio through his connection 
 with the Sophists, illustrate the beginnings of the two 
 movements that are the final intellectual achievements 
 of Hellenism. Plutarch's interests were devoted to 
 philosophy and history, and, as his concern was with 
 the subject-matter rather than the form, he seems to 
 have had little to do with rhetoric, though he was in 
 friendly relations with the Sophists of his day.^ 
 
 Dio, on the other hand, was, for a part of his life 
 at any rate, a professed Sophist, and he is ranked by 
 Philostratus among the followers of the New Sophistic. 
 He is, however, free from certain of its faults. The 
 fashion of imitating a special author, which had 
 begun as early as Hegesias, became general later, 
 with the complete development of the New Sophistic 
 under Hadrian and the Antonines.^ Dio, like Plutarch, 
 
 ' For Plutarch's relation to Sophistic, see Volkmann, Plutarch, 
 i. 67. 
 
 ^ E.g. Aristides copied Demosthenes ; Herodes Atticus, Critias ; 
 Libanius, Aristides ; while Arrian so little understood the rules for 
 imitation laid down by Dionysius, that he mixed his styles, now 
 writing Thucydidean, now Herodotean or Xenophontic Greek. Cf . 
 Hermes, xx. p. 508 (Kaibel) and Schmid, Atticismus, ii. p. 9. 
 
8 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 is free from this pedantry, and his easy flowing style 
 was rightly appreciated by his contemporaries. To 
 say of a man that he wrote * better than Dio ' was high 
 praise.^ The Greek of both Plutarch and Dio reflects 
 a wide reading and close study of authors of the 
 classical period, and is far removed from the Koti/77. 
 But it has nothing of the frigid correctness of 
 Aristides, and its Atticism is comparatively uncon- 
 scious.^ 
 
 What is true of Plutarch and Dio is true, in a 
 higher degree, of Lucian. Like Dio, he followed, 
 for a time, the profession of a Sophist, and deserted 
 it for the less showy studies of philosophy and 
 literature. In Lucian we see the happiest result 
 of a rigorous training in the schools of Khetoric, in 
 the case of a man whose original genius kept him 
 free from pedantic imitation of vocabulary and style. 
 But such an apparition is unique in the later history 
 of Greco-Eoman literature. The representative writers 
 of his period and of the two following centuries are, 
 with hardly an exception, closely identified with the 
 New Sophistic.^ 
 
 > ovTOS 6 &v6puiros Aiccvos iroKv KoiWiov ypdcpei, Epictetus, iii. 23, 17. 
 
 ' For Plutarch's opinion of hyper-Atticism, which meant, in 
 most cases, the unskilful sprinkling in of archaic or farfetched Attic 
 words (ridiculed in Lucian' s Lexiphanes), see Plutarch, de Audiendo. 
 For the fourth century, cf. Themistius, 253, cd. 
 
 ' The term New Sophistic is used, as Philostratus used it, to 
 denote the oratorical revival of the later Greco-Roman period. For 
 while there had been no break in rhetorical studies (as Strabo's 
 account of the Greek rhetoricians, Seneca's descriptions of the 
 schools, and Pliny's reference to Isaeus would prove), the non- 
 forensic style of oratory became more and more prominent in the 
 reigns of the Hellenising Emperors from Nerva to Commodus ; and 
 we can only begin to judge of it from Dio Chrysostom. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 9 
 
 Every historian of the Greco-Eoman period has 
 been at pains to point out the weaknesses of these 
 rhetoricians, who, at any rate for the period between 
 Plutarch and Plotinus, represented all the interests, 
 rhetorical, philosophical, and historical, of the litera- 
 ture of Eome, Greece, and Asia Minor. Their ideal 
 was, it is true, in most cases no higher than the satis- 
 faction of the degenerate tastes of their audiences.^ 
 An orator of the New Sophistic must improvise, to be 
 successful, and could count on delighting his hearers 
 with a sing-song refrain, and feats of memory or of 
 pantomimicry. If Dionysius could have been present 
 at one of the theatrical Eirihsl^sLs of Polemo or 
 Scopelian or Herodes Atticus, he would probably have 
 found in them all those glaring faults, all that av a IB sea 
 dsarpoKT], which he had so severely criticised, and 
 which he had thought was giving place to a more 
 correct and sober standard. He would have found 
 them, moreover, flourishing under the patronage of 
 those very Eomans from whose severer taste he had 
 hoped so much. But that was the public or epideictic 
 side of the New Sophistic. If he had turned to the 
 schools of Ehetoric in which those men were trained, 
 and over which they presided, the schools for which 
 those displays of eloquence were, in most cases, an 
 advertisement, he would have found a system of Greek 
 education which might have satisfied him in its 
 methods, however little he would have approved of 
 its results. He would have found a diligent study of 
 classic models too often carried on in a spirit of narrow 
 pedantry, and an ideal of Atticism in vocabulary, far 
 removed from his broader conception of a revived 
 
 * tV rexvrjv dpl^ea-Qai rep xwp'C^o-^a'j Aristid. Or. 50, p. 566 D. 
 
10 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 national Greek prose. ^ Of the extent to which 
 Atticism in vocabulary was carried in the actual de- 
 clamations of the Sophists, we can hardly form a judg- 
 ment from the fragments preserved by Philostratus. 
 The slight remains of Herodes Atticus and of Polemo 
 that we possess are orations which were probably 
 carefully worked over for publication, and the impro- 
 visations of these Sophists may have been in a very 
 different style.^ But it was under the wing of 
 Sophistic that Atticism, both of vocabulary and style, 
 flourished, and if Aristides must be regarded as excep- 
 tional, because he did not improvise, yet his orations 
 show what could be achieved by a scientific study of 
 classic authors, such as the schools of Ehetoric must 
 have encouraged.^ For in Aristides we have the 
 phenomenon of a Mysian of the second Christian 
 
 ^ Dionysius Hal. (cf. ad Pomp. 2. 3) is distinguished from the 
 later theoretical rhetoricians by his use of eW-qvl^eiv, rather than 
 aTTiKi^eip. 
 
 2 Phrynichus (Lobeck, p. 271) proves that Polemo employed a 
 grammarian to correct some of his published writings, and this may 
 have been the case with the extant declamations. Cf. Kohde, Bhein. 
 Mus. xli. p. 185 n. 
 
 ^ Historians who (like Blass, op. cit. p. 89, and Eohde, EJiein. 
 Mus. xli.) see in the Sophistic 'ETrtSe t^ts a direct descent from 
 Asianism, as represented by Hegesias and Hortensius, must admit 
 that, while in their effort to satisfy the Greek love of improvisation, 
 men like Polemo and Herodes Atticus were betrayed into precisely 
 that dithyrambic abuse of bold metaphors, and those hyperbolic 
 expressions, which are associated with the florid Asianic style, yet it 
 would not be fair to condemn them along with Hegesias, who thought 
 himself superior to Demosthenes. The fact seems to be that absolute 
 distinctions cannot here be maintained, for it is certain that an effort 
 after pure Attic speech and careful studies in style were made in the 
 schools of the second Christian century by Sophists whom Eohde 
 condemns for reviving Asianism. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 11 
 
 century writing Demosthenic Greek.^ In the absence 
 of worthy themes in contemporary life Aristides was 
 thrown back on the themes of the schools, and the 
 inevitable result is an effect of artificiality and 
 pedantry. Aristides was proverbially unpopular as 
 a teacher of Khetoric, probably because of his lack 
 of the talent for improvisation, ^ though for the later 
 Sophists he ranked with Demosthenes himself as 
 a model of Greek prose (Themistius, 330 c). 
 
 But in inferior writers the linguistic revival only 
 increased that aTrscpoKaXla in the use of archaisms, 
 to produce astounding effects, which had irritated 
 Dionysius, Plutarch, and Lucian, and which, in the 
 middle of the third century, meets us in the anecdotes 
 of Athenaeus.^ And side by side with the honest, if 
 mistaken, efforts of Aristides, there must have been a 
 good deal of wholesale plagiarism.'* 
 
 After that period of literary activity under the 
 Antonines, of which Aristides is, for us, the most 
 important representative, there comes another break 
 
 ' Aristides' conception of Atticism would have been too narrow 
 for Dionysius. Cf. Aristid. Bhet. ii. 6 : irepl Se kpfirjueias roaovTou hv 
 etiroiixi, /x^Te o^Sfiari fii]Te p-fifiari XP^'''^"* 6.W01S ttX^v to7s e/c rwy 
 ^i^Kiwv. His practice, however, lagged behind his theory, as may 
 be seen from Schmid's list of his innovations, Atticismus, vol. ii. 
 p. 225. 
 
 2 The comment of Philostratus on Aelian's choice of a pro- 
 fession shows that the mere writer held a much less distinguished 
 position than a declaimer. irpoap-qQ^h ao<pi(n)]s . . . ouSe iir-fipdri 
 VTrb rov ovS/xaros ovtw ixeyd\ov ovtos, aW' eavrhv €v SiatrKei/za/uci/o? 
 us jxiXhri ovK eVtT^Setoi' t(^ ^vyypdcpeiv iiredero, V. S. 273. 624. 
 
 ' Plut. De Aud. 7. 9, Lucian, Bis Ace. 26, and Lexiphanes 
 Athenaeus, Speech of Cynulcus at the banquet. 
 
 •* E.g. Lucian, Jup. Trag. 14, which is probably intended to 
 ridicule this tendency; and cf. D. H. Lys. 17. 
 
12 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 in the line of noteworthy Greek prose writers, which 
 it may not be fanciful to connect with the unsettled 
 state of the Koman Empire, and the consequent with- 
 drawal of imperial patronage, which lasted from the 
 death of Marcus Aurelius to the reign of Alexander 
 Sever us. Et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesar e tantum 
 is true for the whole period of the Greco-Eoman 
 Empire, as for Juvenal's day. The decadence which 
 set in with Commodus lasted through the third cen- 
 tury, in which Aelian and Philostratus are the only 
 important representatives of Greek prose. Philo- 
 stratus wrote his superficial * Lives ' in florid Greek 
 full of reminiscences and hackneyed allusions, and 
 without any pretence to a periodic style or a pure 
 Attic vocabulary. 
 
 Aelian hardly deserves to rank as a writer of 
 Greek prose. Perhaps nothing shows more plainly 
 the worthlessness of Philostratus' s criticisms, for 
 style and vocabulary, at any rate, than his estimate 
 of the Greek of Aelian. He declares that, though 
 Aelian was a Roman, r/rrlKt^s foairsp ol kv rj) 
 fjLsaoysla 'AOtjvaloL. He can have had a very 
 superficial notion of what Atticism really was. Aelian 
 wrote a mixture of Homeric, Tragic, and Ionic Greek, 
 or rather patched his Kotz^ V with it, though he pro- 
 fessed to write for TrsiraiBevfisva Mra? 
 
 The half-century between Severus and Constantine 
 furnishes practically no material for the study of re- 
 vived Greek prose, for the philosophic writings of 
 Plotinus and Porphyry can hardly be associated with 
 the literary efforts of the Sophists. Philostratus had 
 brought his * Lives ' down to the reign of Severus. 
 
 » Sohmid, Att. vol. iii. « Aelian, F. H, 14. 47. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 13 
 
 Eunapius, when in the latter half of the fourth cen- 
 tury he took up the thread of biography, ignored the 
 third century Sophists. The schools of Ehetoric 
 mast have continued to flourish, but favourable out- 
 ward conditions and imperial patronage were needed 
 to produce another period of activity such as that 
 under the Antonines. Such conditions, however, as 
 had encouraged the earlier renaissance could hardly 
 recur. The way for it had been paved by a series of 
 Hellenising emperors. The impetus which Nero had 
 given to Hellenism had never lost its force and was at 
 its strongest in the second century. In the sphere 
 of Philosophy there was, as yet, no dominant school 
 to rival the claims of Ehetoric, and its literary 
 interests were closely allied with the official archaic 
 religion which it was the policy of the Antonines 
 to support. The second century Sophists had the 
 emperor in their audience, and, for their theatre, 
 Rome and Athens. There is a brilliance, a dignity, and 
 a charm of romance about a career like that of Polemo 
 or Herodes Atticus, which the superficial anecdotes of 
 Philostratus and the dull gossip of Aulus Gellius can- 
 not obscure. 
 
 Under the house of Constantine the New Sophistic 
 had a far less brilliant phase. The seat of empire 
 was now Constantinople, which could not furnish the 
 appreciative audiences of the older capital, audiences 
 such as had listened to Herodes and Fronto ^ in the 
 
 ' For the popularity of Greek iiriSel^fis at Rome, even with those 
 who did not understand Greek, see Philostr. V. S. 2. 10. 8, and 1. 9. 
 7. A long contact with Greece and Greek form had made the 
 Romans apt critics of the dramatic changes of expression, the 
 musical voice, the evpoia, all that made up the Periclean charm that 
 
14 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 days when the Koman chair of Ehetoric, o avoa 
 dpovos, was the crowning distinction of a Sophist's 
 career. And the imperial patronage had been trans- 
 ferred to the Christian Church, never again to be given 
 so unreservedly to Ehetoric, except, for a few in- 
 effectual months, by the Emperor Julian.^ 
 
 In the field of Hellenism the third century had 
 produced a formidable rival. When we turn from the 
 'Lives' of Philostratus to those of Eunapius it seems 
 at first sight as though Sophistic had been thrust into 
 the background by this new interest — the Neoplatonic 
 philosophy. For Eunapius, though he was himself a 
 Sophist, and had the most superficial acquaintance 
 with the doctrines of the school of philosophy that 
 was most prominent in his day, devotes the greater 
 part of his work to the followers of Plotinus and 
 lamblichus, and treats of the Sophists in a digression.^ 
 His sketch of Libanius is short and superficial ; he 
 disposes of Himerius in a few lines, and omits The- 
 mistius altogether. This deficiency is made good by 
 the Orations of Themistius and Himerius and the 
 Orations and Letters of Libanius and of the Emperor 
 Julian. It is from them that we must reconstruct the 
 character and judge of the importance of Ehetoric in 
 the fourth Christian century. 
 
 sat on the lips of every Sophist, if we may believe Philostratus. 
 For the prismatic brilliance of the second century declaimer, see 
 Philostr. V. S. 226. 528 K. 
 
 * Constantius never invited a Sophist or a philosopher to court. 
 eKTeivwv r^v aizh rwu Upwv iirl r7]v rusv \6ywv ajifxiav eiKdrus. . . , 
 crvyyev^ yap Tovra o.jx(\j6r(pa, Uph. koX \6yot k.t \. Libanius, iii. p. 
 437 R. Offices were held by low-born Christians, ol 5e priropes 
 eto-Trj/cTjtrai' t€ koL eTpefiov, ibid. p. 452. 
 
 2 Eunap. Vit. 107 : itravn^ov 5e eVl tops <pi\Qcr6<povs ird\iv, '69ey 
 
BRA^ 
 
 OF THB 
 
 TJNIVERSITT 
 JULIAN AND THE NEW ^OPHISTt#- 
 
 We find, in the first place, very little evidence of 
 a displacement of Sophistic by Philosophy, such as 
 the partiality of Eunapius and the popularity of the 
 Neoplatonic school might have led us to expect.^ The 
 fourth century Sophists lack the distinction and the 
 interest of their prototypes of the second century 
 because they were allowed less brilliant opportunities. 
 But we do not find that their rivals, the philosophers, 
 fared any better. At the court of Constantine and 
 Constantius Pagan philosophy and Pagan rhetoric 
 were equally under a cloud. 
 
 With the changed position of the Sophists the 
 actual scene of their rhetorical triumphs had changed, 
 when the centre of gravity of Eoman conquest and 
 government had shifted to the East. The Hellenisa- 
 tion of the East, begun by Alexander, had taken a 
 fresh start when Nero, by openly recognising the 
 supremacy of Greek culture, led the reaction against 
 purely Western interests. Under his successors 
 numerous schools of Ehetoric were founded in remote 
 regions which had formerly been regarded by the 
 Greeks as hopelessly barbarian. To these schools, 
 as the outposts of Hellenism, we can trace that 
 widespread knowledge of Greek letters which we find 
 in the Egypt and Asia Minor of the fourth Christian 
 century.^ 
 
 * In the use of the term ' Sophist,' the distinction recognised by 
 Eunapius is preserved, i.e. it is confined to rhetoricians who, like 
 Libanius, taught rhetoric and gave iiriSei^eis. It may be noted, 
 however, that many Neoplatonic philosophers were renowned for 
 eloquence. So Porphyry chose philosophy, ds anpov a-rrdaris acpiKSfxet/os 
 Koi prjTopiKris • TT\r]v Zcrov ovk ctt' iKeivr\u evevae, (piAocrocpia^ ye irav 
 eldos e/c^uaTxJ^ei/oy, Eunap. p. 456 (Didot). 
 
 2 It is noteworthy that, in the centuries which elapsed between 
 
16 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 Nicomedia, Antioch, Smyrna, and Caesarea had 
 become the rivals of Athens, Alexandria, and Con- 
 stantinople. Libanius of Antioch could boast that 
 his school had supplied with rhetoricians * three con- 
 tinents and all the islands as far as the Pillars of 
 Heracles.' ^ These large cities, no less than the 
 smaller towns, appreciated the value for their repu- 
 tation and general prosperity of the presence of a 
 celebrated Sophist,^ and there was keen rivalry 
 among them to secure for their chairs of Ehetoric a 
 Libanius or a Themistius.^ 
 
 With the philosophers, whom they far out- 
 numbered,^ these professors of epideictic oratory had 
 
 Hyperides and Themistius, not a single Hellene, in the strict sense 
 of the word, with the exception of Polybius and Plutarch, gained 
 distinction in philosophy or literature. With these exceptions, the 
 names which stand out as the classics of the Greco-Koman period 
 belong to the natives of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. Themistius, 
 himself a Paphlagonian, studied rhetoric in Colchis near Phasis. 
 ou5e eV rjM-^PV X^p'^V 'f'** "EXAtjvz, aW' eV rij iffX^i-TM tov I16vtov, 
 ■KX-iicTiov *a(n5os . . . ovrat ^dp^apov Koi av^fiepov x^p'^ov avdph^ kvhs 
 ao0ia 'EWriviKdv re iTrolrjcre Koi avaKTopov rwv Movacbv, ts iv fifcqi 
 K6\x<>}v Kadidpiificvos, €5t5a<r/ce prtTopiKrjp iKirovuv KaX Travrjyipeaiv 
 'E\\-f]Pa}V e/iirpcVeti/, Them. 333 A. 
 
 ' Or. 29, p. 444 E. 
 
 2 Libanius {Or. 29, p. 220) warned the people of Antioch that 
 Caesarea had already robbed them of one Sophist by the offer of a 
 higher salary, and bade them not neglect rhetoric, the cause of their 
 greatness ; cf. Philostr. Vit. Scop. 21, 4. The people of Clazomenae 
 begged Scopelian to settle there : irpo^iiaecrdai ras KKa^ofni^as iirl 
 fieya riyovfjL^pwu el Tuiovros ap7]p ifjLiraiBevcroi a<pi(Tiv. 
 
 ' On the occasion of his visit to Eome, the Komans tried to 
 secure Themistius for their chair of rhetoric, but he would not leave 
 Constantinople. . . . avrhs Se oTriaw Trap' vfias, Uht\v x^^P"-^ *'"* 
 iireipwVTO mpoadyeiv koI iiriKovpov rcf epuri rhv fieyav irapcucaKili/ 
 ficuTiXea, Them. 298 D. 
 
 * Themist. 341 : ore ovu ovru Se^iohs opras, Kol x^'P^^f's, f«* ol 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 17 
 
 little in common. The old quarrel between Elietoric 
 and Philosophy had lasted through eight centuries, 
 and was to last to the end. Their mutual jealousies 
 made it as difficult in the fourth century as it had 
 been in the second to be at once a philosopher and a 
 Sophist. Facility in speaking, svyXcorrLa, was still 
 regarded with suspicion,^ and a single appearance on 
 a platform ^ was enough to disqualify a man for the 
 exclusive ranks of the philosophers, whose attitude 
 to the over-clever Sophists, with their flow of fine 
 language and indifference to speculation, was that of 
 professional men to quacks.^ Most Sophists were 
 content to know just enough philosophy to enable 
 them to point out the futility of the remainder, and 
 to take their stand with Aristides,* who, in this 
 respect at any rate, is representative of his class. 
 
 In the second century the rhetoricians of the 
 better sort had ended by deserting from rhetoric to 
 
 &vQpa>Troi avTacnrd^ourai {tovs (To^KTras) Kol avTCiraivova't, Koi ivrevdeu 
 TrAefrj /j-hv ya7a rovroav wXeir] Se QaXacraa ' ol Se airh rijs XaiKpaTov 
 yeveas e'lKdrcos &pa kol iv Bikt) aTiecpdiKaai re koI airfppv'{]Ka<Tiv iy tm 
 irap6vTi. Cf. Julian 78 C : xopeVxccrSe yap u^eTj ruv av^puu tovtoov 
 a(pdouiav, aaixivuis iiraKuvoures. 
 
 ' So, in the second century, ^afiwplvov rhv (pi\6(To<pou t} ihyXooTria 
 iv aocpiarais iK-npvTTev, Philostr. V. S. i. 8, of. ibid. Procem. 7, and 
 i. 6 ; Vit. Apollon. v. 40 : v Se rov Alwvos <piKoao<pia (nqTopiKurfpa T<j> 
 'A. i<patv€ro k.t.K. ; and Lucian, Parasit. 2. 
 
 - Themist. 243 a. 
 
 ^ Themistius often defends himself from the stock charge of over- 
 cleverness brought against ol Sai/xdvioi croipKnai, 310 c, 332, 336, 339, 
 
 ■• For his scorn of philosophic speculation, see Or. 46. 253 d. 
 This was turning the tables on the Epicureans, who only concerned 
 themselves with rhetoric that they might demonstrate its worthless- 
 ness. Cf. Dion. Hal. de Comp. p. 188 : 'ETriKovpdwi/ Se x^pov oTs oifShv 
 fte'Act 70VT(av, napaiTOVfj-eda. rb yap ' ovK iitnr6vou rov ypdcpiiy oyTOs,' 
 03S avrhs 'ETTiKoi'peios \eyet * to7s fi^ aroxo^C^l^^vois lov irvKva fiiraniir- 
 7 ovTos Kpmipiov ' TToWrjs apyias ^p Ka\ aKaiorrjTos a\f^i<f)dpiJ.aKoy. 
 
 C 
 
18 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 philosophy,^ like Lucian and Dio. Themistius, whose 
 love of display was always laying siege to his philo- 
 sophic aspirations, would not admit that they were 
 incapable of reconciliation. ^ Technically, he was a 
 Sophist ; that is to say, he gave sttl^sI^sls, wrote 
 exercises after the Sophistic pattern, and went on 
 embassies which were entrusted to him solely on 
 account of his persuasive charm. But he insisted 
 that, by the Platonic definition, he was no Sophist.^ 
 He grounded his claim on the single fact that he took 
 no fees : ^ an argument that was quite out of date 
 and would have made a philosopher of Aristides him- 
 self,^ and, moreover, missed the essential point of 
 Plato's quarrel with the earlier Sophists and their 
 Tsx^T] arsx^os, their superficiality, and preference for 
 opinion over knowledge, and their mechanical rules 
 of art, defects which were as conspicuous in the fourth 
 Christian century as in the days of Gorgias. 
 
 On the strength of his Aristotelian * Paraphrases,' ^ 
 
 ' Lucian, Bis Ace. and Fronto, p. 150 (to Marcus Aurelius) : Tu 
 mihi videre . . . laboris taedio defessus, eloquentiae studium reliquisse, 
 et ad philosophiam devertisse, ubi nullum proobmium cum cura ex- 
 colendum, nulla argumenta quaerenda, nihil exaggerandum, &c. 
 
 ^ He described them as suffering equally from their estrange- 
 ment, and his picture of Ehetoric unsupported by Philosophy is as 
 unflattering as Lucian's, from whom he may have borrowed it. Cf. 
 Themist. 304, Bis Ace. 31. 
 
 3 103 B, 429, 354 d. 
 
 * Themist. Or. xxi. xxvi. 260 c, 345 c, ei passim. 
 
 * Aristides took no fees. Or. xlvi. p. 192. Those who wished to 
 flatter him called him a philosopher, though he disclaimed the title. 
 Cf. loc. cit. oiJKovv fiirecrTi fxoi rod irpd-yiiaros ovS4v with Or. xxvi. 
 507, 576. 
 
 ^ Yet he never uses them to support his claim to the title of 
 Philosopher, and, in the only passage where he refers to them 
 {Or. 23. 294-5), he blames the indiscretion of friends who had 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 19 
 
 Tliemistius had, perhaps, more right than any one of 
 his century to assert himself against the pubhc 
 which was neither content that a Sophist should 
 speak nor that a philosopher should be silent.^ But 
 when we consider his wish to reconcile Philosophy 
 and Ehetoric, it must be remembered that, if the new 
 Sophistic differed in most of its essential features from 
 the Sophistic of Plato's contemporaries, it was Philo- 
 sophy as conceived by Isocrates rather than Plato 
 that Themistius had in mind. Like Aristides {Or. 
 46. 408, 518), he would have Philosophy stand for 
 77 Star pt/3r] ir s pi \6<yov9 7rat,Ss la Kotvois — that 
 is to say, he would have been content with a Ehetoric 
 grounded on ethics, a conception that was not likely 
 to satisfy the mystical, speculative Neoplatonists who 
 represented fourth century Philosophy. He suc- 
 ceeded only in estranging both sides from himself, 
 and had no resource but to appeal to the Socratic 
 precedent ; he reminded the philosophers that Plato 
 had taught in public, and called himself a practical 
 philosopher of the same type,^ a comparison which 
 proves how completely, in common with the rest of 
 his age, he lacked a sense of proportion.^ 
 
 published these notes which he had taken as a youth (probably 
 from his father's lectures, see Note on Eugenius, chapter ii. p. 39) 
 and intended for his private use in his Aristotelian studies. 
 
 ' Themist. (nwiroivTa /xev (pi\6(ro(pov Xoidopovures a>s 81' aSwa/xiau 
 rov \4yeLv a-efxvoT-nTa crxvi^<irLC6iJ.€vov, \iyovTi Se iniri^uivTiS W5 €« 
 (piXocrocpias ds prjTopiK^v jxeTidpn. 
 
 2 Themist. 245 d. 
 
 3 An age when Plotinus was more read than Plato ; Eunap. Vit. 
 Plot. TO )8i/3Aia [UKwTLvov) ou fxSvov toTs TreTraidevfx^vois dia x^'P^s wTcp 
 Tovs UXaTUifiKovs \6yovs, aWa /cat rh noXv irXridos is avTO. Kd/xirTerai. 
 Libanius copied Aristides rather than Demosthenes: v-rrhp r'2v 
 opX'Jo'TWJ' 475: ih yap qpUa Uv iroiw \6yovs ru>v Ixvcov ex^aOai 
 
 C 2 
 
20 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 Libanius, on the other hand, is enth-ely uncon- 
 scious of any need for uneasiness as to his position. 
 He was the Aristides of his age, but without the 
 religious Schwdrmerei of Aristides, and his talent for 
 ETTihsi^Ls encouraged him to a greater variety of com- 
 position. But, unlike Aristides, he never jeered at 
 philosophic speculation, and nowhere hints at a 
 desire for the title of philosopher.^ He thought that 
 of ' Sophist ' more honourable than any that the State 
 could bestow,^ and the most flattering that he could 
 give to Julian,^ whose oratorical power he rated high. 
 * Like the nightingale,' he says, ' I ask only to sing,' ^ 
 and, if elsewhere he calls the Sophists Temys^, he 
 means to praise (Lib, E2). 304). 
 
 Of all the Hellenists who supported Julian's re- 
 
 'Apiffreldov Koi TreipaaOai rovs ijiiovs a<poixoiovv ct? '6(rov oTopre ro7s 
 €Keivov K.r.K. Julian declared that lamblichus was inferior to 
 Plato only in point of time ; Libanius assured Themistius that he 
 was equal to Demosthenes {Ep. 371) ; Metrophanes wrote a treatise 
 trep] Twv xapaKT')7pa);/ HXdravos, Eeuo<pci>VTOs, NiKocrrpaTOu, ^iKocrrpaTov. 
 Lucian had found it necessary to warn writers jx)] fiiixflffQai rwv 
 oXiyov rrph 7}}xS)V yeuoixefoov ao(pi(Tr(hv ta ^avXoTara, Suidas, Metro- 
 phanes ; and the highest praise which Eunapius can give to Himerius 
 is, on irapa rhv Q^iov 'ApirrreiSTjj/ 'lararai, Eunap. Vit. p. 494. 
 
 ' Libanius separates himself from the philosophers, Ep. 244 
 to Themistius, ttjs aocpias %v Stj X^l^&vos iroiKiKaor^pav ZeiKvvoov ttciAo: 
 KpaTf7s, et jj-ev Koi tqvs ravrd aoi KaXovuivovs, ovk. olSa. Cf. Ep. 
 1072 : v/MV rots <pl\0(T6<pOl5. 
 
 "^ Eunap. Vit. Lib. p. 496 : rSiv a^iufidrcov rh fieyicrrov ovk iSf^aro, 
 (^■r)(Tas rhv (TO(pi(TT))V ilvai jx^iCova. 
 
 3 Ep. 43, Wolf's Century : &px(^v t' ayaQhs Kparepos re (ro<pi(rri]s. 
 Cf. Epp. 1059. 33. Julian matched Hermes, Or. 23, p. 55. 
 
 * Epp. 707,736 et passim. Ep. 13, Wolf's Century: aW" apKi7 
 jxoi rb aSejj/ Sxrnep rfj atjSJvt {aSeiv, it may be noted, was the 
 Sophistic word for an iiriSei^is). Cf. Dio Chr. Or. 32, p. 423, Julian 
 105 A, Philostr. Vit. S. Hadrian. Aristid. 50, 564, 708. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 21 
 
 vival,. Libanius of Antioch was the most conservative. 
 A second century purist could have found no faUing 
 off from sophistic etiquette either in his point of view 
 or his treatment of his themes. And he was as punc- 
 tihous as any one of them in his avoidance of Eoman 
 names, and, as far as possible, of Eoman allusions.^ 
 
 This was a tradition which had naturally much 
 weakened in the Byzantine period. Themistius 
 neglects it entirely, Himerius betrays only rarely 
 his sense of the earlier etiquette by using a circum- 
 locution rather than, directly, a Eoman name. In a 
 panegyric of Julian it required much ingenuity to 
 avoid mention of the earlier Eoman Emperors, 
 especially of Marcus Aurelius, Julian's model. 
 Libanius not only accomplished this, but never used 
 a Latin word or expression, though he lived in a 
 period when Latin was still the official language,'^ 
 
 • Aristides in his panegyric of Kome used no Eoman name, 
 and declared that one of the virtues of the ideal ruler is rh (piKcK- 
 Kr)va dvai. Or. ix. vol. i. p. 105. Of the innumerable instances of 
 the scrupulous avoidance of these barbarisms in the second century, 
 that recorded of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus is one of 
 the most striking. avayvovs Se koL xprjcpKT^a ^looviKhu iv y 4S4ovto 
 avTov Koivwvriaai ffcptai rov ^v\\6yov, /cat ovS/xaTi TrpofTTVxo^v ViKiara 
 'locuiKcS, AovKovWos yap tis iirey^ypairTo r-p yvwfir}, ir4/j.ir(i eicicrroh^v 
 is rh Koiuhu aurov iiriir\rj^iv iroiovtxiuos irepl rov ^apfiapiafiov tovtov, 
 Koi yap br] Kal ^afipiKiov /cat TOiovrovs er^povs iv toIs i\pi]<j)i(rnivois evpey, 
 Vit. Ap. 4. 5. Cf. Dio C. Or. 22, p. 505 Esk. '((Tccs oe fiov Kara- 
 <^poi/er$ Koi r]ye7 fxe \r\pitv '6ti oh ir^pl Kvpov Kal 'A\KifiidSov \4yu} 
 uKTirtp 01 aocpol ^ti Kal vvy, aWa Nepwvos Kal roiovrwu irpayixdnxu 
 PfurepMV re Kal aSS^wu ixurjixoyevco. 
 
 - Themistius calls Latin r) 5iaA.eKTos Kpurovaa (71 c), but admits 
 that he never acquired it. In fact the best-educated men of the 
 fourth century contented themselves with a knowledge of Greek. 
 Libanius needed an interpreter for a Latin letter (Lib. Ep. 956, 
 12-11). Julian's knowledge of Latin was probably slight ; Eutrop. 
 
22 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 and wrote in the reign of one Emperor who knew no 
 Greek.^ He could think of Juhan only as a Hellene,'-^ 
 a literary man,^ an orator/ a Sophist who con- 
 descended to public business,^ and, when he is 
 writing to a philosopher who had trained Julian, 
 as an expert in philosophy.^ His influence on 
 Julian began when the latter, shortly after his 
 release from his six years' imprisonment in Cap- 
 padocia, was allowed to leave Constantinople to 
 pursue his studies at Nicomedia.^ There he found 
 Libanius,^ and, perhaps, Themistius.^ It was to 
 
 X. ] 6 : adeo ut Latina eruditio nequaquam cum Graeca scientia con- 
 veniret. This is perhaps nearer the truth than Libanius' praise of 
 Julian's proficiency in both tongues, Liban. i. p. 529. For other 
 instances of the neglect of Latin in the first half of the fourth cen- 
 tury cf. Sievers, Leben Libanius, p. 13. With the rise of law-schools, 
 and especially of the famous school at Berytus, under the emperors 
 following Julian, Latin came into fashion again, and Libanius lived 
 to complain that it was likely to oust Greek, Or. 65, p. 442 E. ; EpiJ, 
 1125, 209, 567, 566, 1062, 1123. Libanius saw with dismay the 
 gradual neglect of Greek literature and the Greek language in favour 
 of the utilitarian study of Latin law and literature, Orr. i. 133, 185, 
 ii. 539, 541 ; Epp. 777, 1123. 
 
 ' Valens, Ammianus, xxxi. 14. 
 
 ^ Lib. i. p. 458 : "EWtji' tis el koL Kparels 'E\\r)vccv. Cf. Himerius, 
 Ov. 7 (of Julian), irdsiy 'A0^iot ras aiiTUv oi>57vas "npotrtpQiyyovrai. 
 
 3 Ep. 9, Wolf's Century. 
 
 * Ep. 43, Wolf's Century. 
 
 * Epp. 33, 1059, Larger Wolf. 
 « Ep. 866 ad Priscum. 
 
 ' Eunap. Vit. Maxim. 
 
 » Lib. Or. i. 38-42 ; Epp. 285, 654, 1490. Libanius taught at 
 Nicomedia for five years, 344-9 a.d. For an account of his life there 
 vide Sievers, Leben, p. 53. 
 
 ^ The evidence for Themistius' sojourn in Nicomedia about this 
 time is not precise. But it is not easy to see how Julian could have 
 been his pupil at any other period. Cf . Julian, Ep. ad Themist. 257 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 23 
 
 his association with Libanius at Nicomedia that 
 Juhan owed his Sophistical training, his technical 
 knowledge of epideictic oratory, and to some ex- 
 tent, at any rate, his Greek style. He was under 
 an oath not to attend the Sophist's lectures^ but there 
 was no attempt to hinder their daily intercourse, and 
 he diligently studied all that Libanius wrote, so that 
 he ranked as his most apt pupil.^ 
 
 Of Julian's relations with Themistius it is not so 
 easy to speak definitely. He received no appoint- 
 ment at Julian's hands, ^ but neither did Libanius. 
 From Julian himself we gather that he carried on a 
 continuous and friendly correspondence with Libanius, 
 while the long letter to Themistius proves that he 
 had been the latter 's pupil,^ and that Themistius had 
 addressed a letter of exhortation and flattery to him 
 on his accession. Julian deprecates the flattery, and 
 refutes the argument of Themistius in favour of the 
 ^ios TTpaKT LKos. lu vicw of the meagre evidence 
 for Julian's attitude to Themistius it would not be 
 
 D : Xiyoiix' Uv ^Stj (Toi rh. tov TIKoltuvos . . . elSori /xei/ koI S(5a|aj/Tt /xe. 
 That Themistius taught at Nicomedia we know from his 2J:th Oration, 
 p. 306. Baret, De Themistio, p. 9, assumes too hastily, on the score 
 of the friendship between Libanius and Themistius, that they must 
 have taught at the same time at Nicomedia ; they could quite as 
 easily have become acquainted at Constantinople. 
 
 * Libanius, i. p. 232. It was the Christian sophist Hecebolius, if 
 we may judge from the hints of Libanius, who prevented Julian 
 from attending his lectures. 
 
 - He held his only prefecture under Theodosius, Them. Or. 34, 
 c. xiv. with Mai's note. Baret, p. 22, assumes that it was Julian 
 who offered the prefecture of Constantinople to Themistius, and to 
 whom Themistius refers as 6 ai5o7o5 ifx-ol ahroKpdrwp. 
 
 ^ Julian, Ep. ad Them. 
 
•24 JULIAN ANI> THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 safe to accept the suggestion of some critics that the 
 respectful tone ' in this letter is ironical. 
 
 Libanius in his Orations and Letters has placed 
 his relations with Julian beyond question. But when 
 we turn to the Orations of Themistius we find no 
 trace of such a hero-worship of Julian. Themistius 
 speaks of him with the greatest reserve, and some- 
 times with an ambiguity which leaves it open to 
 question whether he is referring to Julian or to 
 another emperor. He only once mentions Julian by 
 name,^ though he alludes to him several times, and 
 always with respect.^ His indirectness contrasts 
 strongly with the open lamentations of Libanius, 
 expressed at the same period and under the same 
 Christian emperors. But the evidence for actual 
 estrangement is and must remain negative.^ Themis- 
 
 ' Julian, Ep. 26B : 5 ^j\^ KetpaXh tal irda-ns e/xoiye rifXYJs a^ia. 
 
 - apKil fiiacrdels ^louKiavhs rrjs olKOv^evrjs KaXeaai irpeafievTrju &^iov 
 O'j jx6vov rr\s KaWiiroXeois KaX to irpSjTa <p4p€adai (l)iXocro(pLas iu ypd^ujxacriv 
 d/xoXoy-fiaas, Themist. 354 d. This encomium of Themistius' philo- 
 sophy does not occur in any extant letter of Julian. Lib. Ep. 1061 
 mentions an Oration of Themistius in praise of Julian which is not 
 extant. 
 
 3 Themist. 165 c probably refers to Julian : rep irzi5\ rw Koivcrravrivov 
 cireira tj? iKeivov ade\(f>cfi [i.e. COUsin) a.fj.(po7u ayaBolv jxkv Ka\ anx^^^ 
 Zioiv. And perhaps 99 d Themistius is speaking of Procopius, who 
 claimed relationship with Julian, as o rhv irwywva KaOei/xcvos /cat rov 
 <pi\o(ro(()coTdT ov Twj' ^a<ri\€a)v avmroiovfxivos. 
 
 * Baret, De Them. p. 22, and, following him, Zeller, v. p. 742, 
 assume rather too hastily that there was a positive coolness between 
 Julian and Themistius. They agree that the indifference of the 
 latter to the Neoplatonic philosophy (Them. 33 and 295 b) would be 
 sufficient to account for such a coolness. Baret further alleges his 
 Christianismus. If by this he means his high position under the 
 Christian Emperor Constantius, that would certainly be a good 
 reason for Julian's lack of friendliness. Themistius (63 c) thanks 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 25 
 
 tius seems to have taken no interest in the restora- 
 tion of Hellenism, and his attitude to Eome and the 
 Eomans was very different from that of Libanius.^ 
 The latter's conviction of the importance of the old 
 national religion for the prosperity of the Koman 
 Empire was one of the strongest ties that bound him 
 to Julian, and they always remained on cordial 
 terms.^ Libanius declared that the Emperor sur- 
 passed his teacher in rhetoric.^ 
 
 Julian's work as a Sophist is, technically speaking, 
 comprised in his panegyrics and his (pvaiKol v/jlvoc, 
 
 Jovian for bringing back philosophy from exile : ov irapv irapa ro'is 
 TToAAoIs evTrpayov(rav Kara rhv irapSura xpovop. It would be possible to 
 see in this passage a reflection on Julian's attitude to philosophy in 
 the person of Themistius himself, if it were not more natural to refer 
 it to the alarm felt by the Hellenists on Jovian's accession. Socrates, 
 iii. c. 24 : ol rpifiwi/ocpopoi tovs rpifiwuas aneOevro, an alarm which was 
 dispelled by Jovian's declaration of freedom of religious opinion, see 
 Gibbon, vol. ii. 407, Themist. 68 a, 69 d, Dindorf ad loc. Baret 
 (p. 27) seems to be wrong in supposing that Themistius' Oration (v.) 
 was to advise religious toleration. It was rather to thank Jovian for 
 it ; cf. 68-9. 
 
 ' Themistius' free use of Roman names and allusions has been 
 already noted. He goes so far as to say (71 c) that, if he could do 
 so, he would exchange his knowledge of Greek for a knowledge of 
 Latin that Valens might understand him without an interpreter— a 
 piece of flattery to which so sincere a Hellenist as Libanius would 
 never have condescended. 
 
 2 We find Libanius, even under the Christian Theodosius, vehe- 
 mently denouncing the desecration of the Pagan temples and tracing 
 the successes and reverses of the Roman emperors to their respect 
 for or neglect of the gods. Lib. Or. 28. 179. Libanius was, how- 
 ever, quite free from the taint of superstition, and even declares that 
 he does not hold with sacrifices and haruspices, but prefers 7; prjTopwv 
 (xavTiK-i], which is rh koKcjs etVa^eij/, Ep. 73. 7. 
 
 3 Ey. 43, Wolf's Century. The admiration was mutual ; see 
 Julian, E;p. 14, which praises extravagantly an Oration of Libanius. 
 
26 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 but his rhetorical training has left its traces in all 
 his writings, so that we may draw upon them all for 
 illustrations. His first oration, the panegyric of 
 Constantius, is universally acknowledged to be his 
 masterpiece.* Julian's study of Khetoric was com- 
 paratively brief and intermittent, and he constantly 
 pleads this fact in order to disarm the criticism 
 of trained rhetoricians.^ Yet his first Oration follows, 
 w^ith hardly a single deviation, the rhetorical rules 
 for the arrangement and treatment of a /SaaiXtKos 
 \6yos as we find them in Menander^s treatise on 
 epideictic oratory. 
 
 Analysis of Oration I, 
 
 It begins with the aKpoarcov Trapao-Ksvtjf 
 the prooemium which conciliates the audience and 
 gives them the threads by which to follow the 
 whole oration.^ Julian deprecates the charge of 
 flattery,'* and announces the order of the divisions of 
 his theme. -^ 
 
 The formal panegyric begins with rj irarpis,^ 
 
 ' It was on the model of this Oration that Libanius wrote his 
 Oration on Julian's consulship. It was written and probably delivered, 
 c. 355, before Julian went to Gaul. 
 
 ^ That this excuse was a commonplace of oratory we may gather 
 from Themistius 332 et passim, Julian, 2 a, r>, 3 c. 
 
 ^ Menander ap. Spengel 221. 228 insists on such a procemiura 
 for each division of the panegyric ; Julian observes this rule by the 
 affectation of airopia [e.g. 6 d) ; by a question intended to call the 
 attention of the audience to a fresh division, or by a plain statement 
 that he is passing on to it. 
 
 * 4 c. 
 5 4d. 
 
 * 5 B. So Menander, 215 : ii^ra ret irpooifna eVJ t^ irarpida ^^is. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 27 
 
 Here comes in the praeteritio which Menander ^ advises 
 in the case of an emperor whose birthplace was not 
 especially renowned, for Constantius was born in 
 lUyria. After an inventory of the nations which can 
 claim a share in the jsvaa-cs Kal Tpo<pr} oi Con- 
 stantius, Julian launches into a brief panegyric of 
 Eome, and awards her the s^aipsrov jspas, as 
 rj ^aa-iXevovaa, us the birthplace of Constantius' 
 mother, and as a city which Constantius had called 
 BiSdo-KaXov apsTrjsJ^ He is able to carry back 
 the irpor^ovwv siraivos^ as far as Claudius H.,'* and 
 dwells briefly on the exploits of the ancestors ^ of 
 Constantius, especially of his father Constantine,^ 
 whose greatest achievement was rr]v cttjv jsvecriv 
 Kal Tpo(j)7]v, The mention of filial piety gives a 
 chance for the contrast with the Persian kings without 
 which s, ^aaiXiKos \6y09 would have been incom- 
 plete.'' There were no portents at the birth of Con- 
 stantius, so Julian * leaves the recital of them to the 
 poets.' ^ There follows, according to rule,^ an account 
 
 ' 215 end. Other cases of praeteritio and avricppaa-is in Julian are 
 7 c, 6 c, 7 D, 10 B, &c. 
 
 2 6 c. 
 
 ' Menander, 217 init. ; cf. Julian 105 a : Kaedirep rtj/a ^iropa ^vv 
 rixvri rtXeiov q,jaL fiaai\idos i-yKdipnov 6.i'oodfu anh tov yeyovs ap^dixeuov. 
 
 * lb. 6 D. 
 
 » lb. 7. 
 
 « lb. 7-9. 
 
 ' Cf. Themist. 233 a et al. and Dio C. Or. 4 de Regno, for the 
 stock passage from Herodotos. 
 
 ^ Julian, 10 b ; cf. Menander, 218 : e)f ri aiixfioKov ye-)ovf -n-epl rhv 
 t6kou . . . avTf^eraaov to7s irepl rhv 'P(aiJi.v\op hoi rhv Kvpof, with 
 Julian 10 B : baa &Wa 6pv\e7f eldoOaffiv . . . Kvpov koi tov ttjs rj/jLerepas 
 olKiffTov ^6x^(0$ { = 'Pwixv\ou). Menander says: 'Do not hesitate to 
 invent them,' but Julian will not do this. 
 
 3 Menander, 219, 220. 
 
28 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 of Constantius' training in war, letters, and states- 
 manship, a comparison, to his advantage, with 
 Odysseus and Alcibiades, and next 6 irspl tmv 
 irpd^scov \6yos (cf. Menander, 220 end). 'The 
 virtues of a king are four,' says Menander,^ * courage, 
 justice, temperance, prudence.' The recital of the 
 wars of Constantius is designed to show his superiority 
 to his contemporaries in all these. 
 
 The TTpd^swv Xoyos is naturally the longest. 
 A fresh division begins with the s^sis of Constantius, 
 and here there is a second contrast with Alexander 
 and Cyrus. This division, which is technically called 
 6 ire pi TTJs slprjvrfs \6yo9,'^ is especially con- 
 cerned with the peaceful virtues of temperance, justice, 
 and prudence,^ which are illustrated at some length. 
 The happy condition of the Empire and the army 
 under such a ruler is then described, and the pane- 
 
 * Menander, 222 ; cf. D. C. de Regno 26 : (piXavQptairov iiQos koX 
 irpaov KaX S'lKaiov %ri Sc w\rriKbv Koi av^puov Ka\ fxaMcTTa St; xc^'POJ/Ta 
 tveptecriais oirep iaTiv eyyvrarw ttjs twu deuv (pvaeus. Plato had said 
 in the Laws, 709 E, rvpawos 5' earco v4os kuI ixurjfxwt^ Koi 6v/xadr]s Koi 
 auSpeTos kui ixeyAKoTtp^-n^is ^vcm Koi ord^pcav. AjSatrtAt/cbs \6'yos was 
 always designed to show that the ruler to whom it was addressed 
 realised Plato's ideal. So Julian, 10 c. Themistius, who lived 
 under Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valens, Gratian, and Theodosius, 
 and addressed panegyrics to five of these emperors, assures every one 
 of them in turn Hn Sttoo-o Skc^uos (Plato) u)v^ipoit6Kr\(Tev Virap •^yne?s 
 reOcdfieea, 62 D ; cf. 55 (to Constantius), 66 d (to Jovian), 81 a (to 
 Valens), 215 c (to Theodosius). 
 
 - Menander, 226 init. 
 
 ^ Cf. Menander, loc. cit. : rovrov 5^ Biaip-fjffeis els (r<o(ppocnji'r}v, tls 
 SiKaiocrvur)v, els <pp6vi](riv. The correspondence with Menander's rules 
 is here especially close. Cf. Julian 46 d, 47 a with Menander 227 
 end, where the illustration of (Tcocppoavyn is almost verbally the 
 same ; and cf . Julian 43 with Menander 230 init. Julian says : Sm 
 Tots KoivoLs TUP Tr6Kewp ever-opias ; Menander says : ipe7s ras tveTTjpias 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 29 
 
 gyric ends rather abruptly, without the final svxh 
 for the continuance of the happy reign that was 
 recommended by Menander. 
 
 The panegyric written by Themistius on Constan- 
 tius affords in some respects a contrast to Julian's 
 Oration. Themistius too fulfils all the requirements 
 of Menander, but a much closer analysis would be 
 needed to show how skilfully he covers the ground. 
 Julian is so punctilious in following the rules and in 
 indicating the order of his subjects that he leaves the 
 impression that he wrote with a handbook of rhetoric 
 before him.^ Themistius conceals his art. He is less 
 historical, and devotes himself chiefly to 6 irspl rrjs 
 slprjvrjs \6ryos. His language throughout is more 
 figurative and picturesque^ than Julian's, and he 
 occasionally becomes impassioned,^ while Julian never 
 shows a trace of rhetorical Ostaa-fjuos. 
 
 Julian belonged, with Themistius, to the less con- 
 servative class of Sophists, and seldom made an 
 effort to avoid a Koman allusion, but his illustrations 
 were, for the most part, drawn from the classic period 
 of Greece, and while on almost every page of his pane- 
 gyric there is a mention of Alexander or Cyrus,'' or both, 
 
 • Yet Julian declines to be bound by the rules of panegyrists, 
 C3 D, 64 A. 
 
 - Cf. Julian's Sxrirep v(p\7]fj.a /3a(ri\e7 irarp^ov atrodohs r^v aKovpyida 
 (77 c) with Themistius' (56 b) airedvaaTO oh th 'yripas Kaddirep ol ocpeis, 
 aWa T-^v i^wpou aKovpyiha. 
 
 ^ On the founding of a library by Constantius, he cries loh, lov, 
 ws &,TOTrov Ka\ rcpatniov tKeTj/o, Sxi Koi rai y^vx^^s ai/ras twv aoipwv Kal 
 auiSilxoov T}pu)wv avaKoK^lrai KoX aviffTrjcriv e« rwv Tatpuv, 59 C. 
 
 * All the Sophists delighted in allusions to Persian monarchs. 
 liucian ridicules the tendency, Rhet. Praec. 18 : koL oei 6 "AOws rrXciado) 
 Kcu 6 'EK\r;(nrovTOS Tre^fvecxQu Kal Hf'plTjs (pivyeTW. 
 
30 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 there is seldom a direct reference to Koman his- 
 tory.i 
 
 The rest of Julian's purely rhetorical work is 
 comprised in Oration 11.^ — a second panegyric of 
 Constantius — and Oration III., which is a x^pua- 
 TrjpLos or gratiarum actio addressed to the Empress 
 Eusebia. Both these Orations afford illustrations 
 of many of the points noted in the analysis of 
 Oration I., but do not call for further comment. The 
 second Oration was modelled on the first, of which 
 it is in great part a literal reproduction.^ The 
 ')(^cipL(nrjpLos is important for its autobiographical 
 details. 
 
 Julian notes as characteristic oi ol ufiaOscrraToc 
 prjTopss the habit of introducing at every turn cer- 
 tain hackneyed poetical and mythological allusions. 
 It was a device to hide the meagreness of their sub- 
 ject-matter and their lack of ingenuity in developing 
 their themes.'* * They are always quoting Delos, and 
 
 • rovs i^ehSvTa^ Kapxv^ova 'PcDfialwu (TTparrjyovs ; cf . 17 D, 18 A. 
 Once he evidently avoids a Eoman name, 10 b : Kvpov koI tov ttjs 
 TjfjLeTepas oIkkttov TrdAews (=^Komulus) Kol 'Ake^dvdpov. To avoid 
 saying Mardonius, Julian uses a circumlocution, 352 a : oixdiwixo^ ^v 
 rov rhu ^fp^rju avamifravTOs inl t^v 'EA-AciSa aTparevcrai. The highest 
 ♦praise that Julian can give to Rome is that it is 'EWriph yeuos re 
 Koi -TToAjTetar, 153 A. The avoidance of the direct name in the case 
 of Eomulus may have been merely the Hterary affectation which 
 caused the Sophists to say 6 XoyoiroLhs 6 &ovpios rather than 
 ' Herodotos ' (Julian, 389), and v Aa/fajva rather than ' Helen ' (412 d). 
 Julian often does this, though not, like Libanius, to excess. 
 
 2 It was probably never delivered ; the date is approximately 
 determined by 56 b, which proves that it was written after Julian's 
 departure to Gaul. 
 
 " Cf. 57 c with 37 c ; 58 b with 38-9 ; 77 c with 32 A. 
 
 '• 236 A : 5ia tV ''■&>>' \6ywp airopiav Koi rh fir) ex^*'' ^"P**'' «'* ''''^"^ 
 irapdpTwv '6 n (paxriv. 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 31 
 
 Leto and her children, and shrill swan-songs and dewy 
 meadows, and the scent of flowers and spring.' ^ 
 Themistius declares that, for his part, he is free from 
 this affectation — kuI imtj fjLS dWcos voixiays oipal^sadao 
 Tco KVKVW Kol TTj arjSovi, KaOdwsp ol KOfi'^oi ao(f)L(TTal, 
 ol KOfjLfiovvres tovs \6yovs olov (pvKLw Ks^^prjvrac 
 TovTOLn T0L9 opvsoos.^ Neither Julian nor Themistius 
 uses the trite illustrations mentioned in these passages, 
 though Himerius abounds in them.^ 
 
 But there were many other poetical and literary 
 allusions which had passed into the Sophistic lan- 
 guage, and were quite as well-worn as those which 
 Julian avoids. The following tabulation, while it does 
 not pretend to be exhaustive, will show, at any rate, 
 that he followed the Sophistic usage in the matter of 
 those rjSvo-fjbara Xoyayv, 
 
 ^ Julian, 236 a : ri ArjXos iirepXfrai kuI rj AtjtcIj fxerh rtcv iral^cou, clra 
 KvKvoi Xiyvphu aSovTfs Koi iir7]xovvra avTo7s to deudpa hcificivis ts ^vZpocroi 
 Kai Tipes e'lKoves TOiavrai. Uov tovto 'itro/cpaTTjs e</ rots ^yKfajxiacrriKols 
 (TTolrjae kSjols ; ttov 5e rwv iraXaiwu tis avSpwv ot ra7s Movaais ireKovuTo 
 yvTjcriws, aX\' oux 'dxrir^p oi vvv. 
 
 2 Themist. 336 c ; cf. 330 : }iivvpi^6vT(av Iv rols Trp!>\6yois ^po9 
 inaivovs Koi xfAiSoVcot- kol a.r)d6vcov ; cf. with this Lucian's description of 
 the degradation of rhetoric, Bis Ace. 31 : iyio yhp bpSov ravTTjv ovKin 
 acotppovovaau . . . KoaixovfjLevrjv 5e Kol ras rpixo^s evderi^ovaav Koi (pvKiov 
 ivrpifio^iv-qv . . . and D. Hal. vet. auct. proem. 
 
 ^ Aristides, Or. xx. p. 428 d : £ kvkvwv &55rj hoL a-nSSiwu x^P^^ ', 
 Himerius, Or. 18. 1 Delos and Leto, ib. 4 nightingale and swan ; 
 6\iyos 6 A€i;uci'j/ Tov KVKvov o.KK'' uBovTt avTc^ cvvvn7]X^7v id4\ei to 
 (TiifjLTrayTa ; cf. Julian, 236 a : kvkvoi koX iirrjxovvTa outoTs ra S4i/5pa ; 
 Choricius Gaz. (Boisson) p. 173 : ol kvkvoi vfxuovai rhu 'AirSWocva, cf. 
 Philostr. Vit. Scop. 4. Scopelian refused to go to Clazomenae, tt/j/ 
 oiTjSJfa pi)aas iv oWiaKif fjut] a5eiv, Sxrirep 8' &\aos t^ju ^/xipvav eVKe»|/OTo 
 Koi T^j/ rjxoi} TTf]V e/cet TrAetCTOi; a^iav (f-i\Qr]. Libanius wrote an iyKwixiov 
 eapos, iv. p. 1051, and for the general tendency to this sort of common- 
 place see Epictetus, iii. p. 282, Teubner. 
 
32 
 
 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 Herodotos, Thalia, 
 139-140. 
 
 Pindar, Olymp. vii. 
 50 : KsivoLS 6 fxsv 
 ^avdav ayafyoDV ve^s- 
 \av I TToXvv v<TS y^pvaov. 
 
 Menander ap. Spen- 
 gel, 3, p. 362, men- 
 
 Julian, 117 B : TTVvOd' 
 vofiao yap Brj koI Aapslov 
 S(09 STL hopv<^6pos rjv rov 
 Hspaoyv fjbovdp'y^ov, to) Xafj^cft) 
 ^sv(p TTspl rrjv Aiyvirrou crvfi- 
 paXslv (pevyovTo Tr)v avrov 
 Koi Xafiovra <f)OLVLKlha nva 
 hwpov 01) a(f)6^pa STrsOvjjiSi, 
 rrjv Xa/jbicov varspov avrtSov^ 
 vac TvpavviBa, and again in 
 Ep, 29. 
 
 Themist. 109 a: ra [xsv 
 dXka Aap£L09 d(j)7]Ke, Xvko- 
 acovra Ss ovk dcpiJKev. 2a- 
 /jLi09 rjv, Koi Aapslov arpa- 
 rsvo/jbsvov ETTStSr) rrjs '^(Xa/jLV' 
 Sos aXovra fjarOsro ScopecTaL 
 TTpotKa eKBv9. 
 
 lb. 67 A : Tov ^Tcrrdairov 
 Aapslov /jLiKpov diT£^r]vas sis 
 fisyaXoTrpETTSLav dfjLot/Srjs, 
 
 Julian 290 b : Ifva y^pvcrov 
 waTTSp rols 'VoSloLs 6 (dsos 
 varj Tols TTSvrjaLV. 
 
 Aristid. i. p. 807 : /cal 
 
 "OfJL7]pOS fJLSV TTKoVTOV S(f)7} 
 
 Kara^sai rov Aia rfj vrjcrw 
 Kal UivSapos TrapaXajSoov 
 vaai '^pvcrov vs^sK'qv ^avOrjv 
 eTna-TTjo-avra. 
 
 Liban. vol. iv. p. 200 K. 
 ToaovTOv avTols iv ovpavw 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 33 
 
 tions as an appropriate 
 rjEvcr/jia in a panegyric 
 of Khodes, irspl Bs 
 'FoSlcov oTi 6 Z6V9 vasp 
 Xpvo-S. 
 
 Homer, Od. B. 227 
 
 sqq. 
 
 KslcrOai y^pvcTLOv oyars kol 
 woXsLS okas svBaljiovas 
 
 TTOLSLV VST^'^pVCT lov. 
 
 Philostr. Imag. ii. 27 : 
 *PoBlols Bs Xsyerat ')(^pvcros 
 If ovpavov psvo-aL kol Bia- 
 TrX^vaac crcpcov ras otKias 
 
 Kal T0V9 (TTSVOOTTOVS VS(ps\T]V 
 
 is avTOvs pTj^avTOS rod Alos, 
 ore /ccLKSLvoc TTJs ^ AOrjvas 
 ^vvrJKaif. 
 
 Himerius, 13. 34 : ToSt- 
 ovs fikv Br) \6yos va-drjvai, 
 ')(pvo-Q)j ')(^pv(Trjv sir'' avrovs 
 Tov Aibs vs^sXrjv prj^avTOs, 
 
 Choric.Gaz. (Boiss.) 121: 
 apa fjuri roaovrov sv iravrjyvpsi 
 ')(pvabv T) 'Polos' sTTSias puvdo- 
 \oy7](rac ^PoBiois ')(pvaovp 
 
 VSTOV. 
 
 Julian, 240 b : rls r)fuv 
 TO vrjTTSvdss i^svpot (f)dp~ 
 jiaKOV ; sire \6yos tjv skslpo 
 irXijpTjs AlyvTrTicov BLrjyrjfid- 
 
 T(OV Sid^ OTTSp aVTOS EITOLT)- 
 
 asv TOVTO rrjs *^\sv7js irap^ 
 AlyvTTTLCOv fJbaOovarjs . . . 
 TTorafMovs elvat 'y^prj koyovs 
 ol ras oXyyBovas d(j)atpr]^ 
 a-ovcTL Tcov yjrvxcov ; and 
 again 412 d. 
 
84 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 Eunap. EcL 17 : rl h 
 rots r)/jLSTspoL9 \6yot9 ecttI 
 (jxipfiaKOv oirolov ^'Ofirjpos 
 8ca Tov KpaTYjpos rod rrjs 
 'Ekevrjs alvLTTsraL ... 07 /cal 
 
 TO TrJ9 'K\SV7J9 ^dpfiaKOV 01) 
 
 Trod Tcs rjv ovSs tl9 Alyvir- 
 Tia Ti')(y'r] vrjTrsvOsf iropia 
 aKSvd^ovaa aXKa res \6yos 
 rjSvs Koi 7rdvao(f>o9. 
 
 Themist. 357 a : (pvsrat 
 sv Tols (piXoao^las Xsi/jucbacv 
 (pdpfiaKOP . . . OTTOLOV ''Ofirjpos 
 Xsyst TTjv rov ^cbs dvyarspa 
 *^\iv7)v iropicraadav irapa 
 TTjs Aiyvirrlas. 
 
 Philostr. prooem. to 
 F. S. 201 : TO <f)p6vTiafjLa 
 TOVTO TO, ci')(6r) Kov^iel odcr- 
 TTSp 6 KpaTTjp Trjs *Fi\svr]S 
 
 Tols KlyVlTTLOLS (j^apfJbdKOiS, 
 
 Eupolis ^fjfi. 6. Julian, 33 a : tIs 8e 77 
 
 TTSldo) TOiS 'X^SiXsaiV STTl/Cad' 
 7]/JLSV7] 7] TO KEVTpOV SyKaTa- 
 
 Xlttscv (so Cobet, rightly, for 
 Hertlein's hairoXiTrslv) ia- 
 ')(V(Taaa tols yfrv^al^ ; 
 
 426 B : TocrovTov avTy 
 KsvTpov axTTTSp /jLsXLTTa sy- 
 KaTaXsXoiiTas (so Cobet). 
 
 Eunap. Vit. Max, 4:1 : 
 Toaavrr} tls d(f)po8lTrj tols 
 ')(jci\sa-LV sTTS/cddrjTO, 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 35 
 
 Plato, LawSy 659 e : 
 KaOdiTsp rots Kafivovai 
 rs Kol daOsvMS X<7y^ovai 
 rd arco/jLaia ev rjSeaL 
 real airloLS Kal Troufxaai 
 Ti]v ')(^p7}cnr)v irsLpoivrai 
 Tpo(f>7)v 7rpo(T(j)dpstv ols 
 /jLsXec tovtcov. 
 
 Himerius, Or. 5. 16 : 
 del yap ris iiriKadi^st ireiOu} 
 
 rots ')(slX£(TLV. 
 
 Eunap. Vit, Chrys, 112 : 
 TO d^sXss sirsKdOrjTO rols 
 \6yoLS 7]rs sttI tovtols d(ppo- 
 hiTT) TOiV prjfidroyv KarsdsXys 
 
 TOV dKpOODfJbSVOV. 
 
 Themist. 330 a : \6yov he 
 Ksvrpov EyKaTakiirelv. 37 B. 
 
 Julian, 314 c : ovk olaOa 
 on rd TTLKpd <^dpiiaKa fii- 
 yvvvTSs ol larpol r5> fisXc" 
 Kpdrcp 7rpo(T<j)epov(ri ; 
 
 Themist. 63 B : dirav- 
 raxov he tS K£')(^apia-fM£V(p 
 TO avfJL^spov Karajjuyvvvai, 
 wa-TTSp ol Toov larpMV r/Tn- 
 (jdTspoL rd ^dpfiaKa irpos 
 TTjv aia-drj(Tcv sirLKpyirTovrai 
 7ols TjSva/JLacrL. 
 
 Themist. 302 b: rovsa-ocj)' 
 (orspovs fjLLfJLr)Tsov Tcov larpcov 
 01 rd TTLKpOTspa TCOV (jiapfjid- 
 tccjv fjLsXcTL rrjv KvXiKa irspL' 
 yplaavTSS itIvslv BtSoaai. 
 
 Dio C. Or. 33. 10 : orav 
 ^S7j Tt TCOV drjBsaTspojv iriscVf 
 i>2 
 
36 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 
 
 TTpoa^spovac /jlsXltc •y^piaa^ 
 <yav TTjv Kv\iKa. 
 
 Maximus Tyr. Diss. x. 
 
 6 : 01 larpol ra iriKpa ro)v 
 
 (ffap/juaKCOv avahsvaavTSS 
 
 irpoarjvs'l Tpo(f>fj k.t.X. 
 
 Herod. Thalia, Julian, 9 b : kuI Kvptp . . 
 
 ov')(^ vTrrjp'^e TovTO • TsXsvrrj' 
 aavros jap 6 irals co(f>6ri 
 /jbaKpM (pavXoTspos ooars 6 
 fxsv SKoXelro Trarrjp 6 Bs 
 iTTCOvo/xdo-Orj hsairoTTjs ) and 
 85 D. 
 
 Themist. 233 a. 
 
 Dio C. Or. 4, p. 72, 
 Arnim. 
 
 The illustration in 241 a seems to have been a 
 common one ; cf. that passage, sirsl koI rrjv fiskiTrav 
 SK TYjs BpLfjLvrdrijs iroas k.t.X. , with Psellus, Ep. 174 
 (Boiss.) : y fjLsXcaaa . . . Kai rw dvjiw irpoa-laTaraL. 
 <f>vTov 6 OvjJbos Bpifivrarov k.t.X. 
 
 The almost proverbial expression Tais fiovaais aBco 
 KoX ifjLavTQ) (Misop. 338) is found Themist. 366 b, 
 Dio C. Or. 78. 420 ; cf. Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy , 
 * I have lived mihi et Musis in the University.' 
 
 The proverbial phrase tov saxctTov ;)^/Twi/a aTro- 
 Bva-aaOai, 96 c, is not easy to trace to its source ; 
 cf. Dioscorides ap. Athen. 507 n : v^ Bs 6 HXutcov 
 
 (J>lX6Bo^09 OaTLS S(f)T]Or£V S<T')(aTOV TOV TTjS B6^7]S '^^LTCOVa 
 
 sv TM OavoLTw auTQ) diroBvo/jLedaf and ib. 281 d, with 
 Tac. Hist. 4. 6 : erant quibus Priscus appetentior 
 famae videretur quando etiam sapientibus cupido 
 
JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 87 
 
 gloriae novissima exuitur. The saying is, of course, 
 not to be found in Plato. 
 
 For a modern use of the phrase cf. Chamfort, 
 Dialogues entre Saint-Real^ Epicure, Julien, &c. : 
 Julien loq, * L'on sait que je ne fus pas insensible a 
 la gloire ; c'est la derniere passion du sage ; c'est la 
 chemise de Vcime m'a dit tout a I'heure un philosophe 
 aimable, ne parmi mes chers Gaulois. Saint-ReaL 
 Ah ! je reconnais Montaigne.' — Chamfort, (Euvres 
 Choisies (vol. i. p. 173 : Bibliotheque Nationale), 
 
38 
 
 CHAPTEK II 
 Julian's relation to philosophy 
 
 Julian's relation to the philosophy of his day was 
 that of an uncritical disciple, and he left nothing that 
 can rank as a contribution to the doctrines of his 
 school. He lived in a period of eclecticism, during 
 which original speculation had practically ceased. 
 The Neoplatonic was the only school of importance 
 in the fourth Christian century, and lamblichus, 
 its chief representative, while he exaggerated certain 
 aspects of its teaching, added little that was new. 
 The Epicureans and Sceptics had fallen entirely into 
 the background; the writings of their founders had 
 already perished.^ The Peripatatics had been merged 
 in the Platonists and Neoplatonists.^ 
 
 ' Julian 301 C : fxT^re ^EiriKovpeios eiViVw \6yos fxi)Te Tluppcoveios. 
 ^Stj 'yap KaAus TroiovvTes ol deal kol avrjprjKacriv &<TTf iiri\iiireii/ koX to. 
 TrXeTcTO Twv fii^Kiwv. 
 
 2 The school was still recognised as having an independent exist- 
 ence ; cf. S. Aug. Contr. Acad. iii. 19, 42 : nunc philosophos non fere 
 videmus nisi aut Cynicos aut Peripateticos aut Platonicos ; but the 
 position of Eugenius, Themistius' father, is probably typical of the 
 Peripatetics who followed Alexander Aphrodisias (Zeller, vol. iv. 
 p. 800). We gather from the references to Eugenius in Themistius 
 that as a teacher of Aristotelian doctrines he held a prominent 
 position. Constantius, in the panegyric of Themistius which is 
 printed with the latter's Orations, speaks as follows of Eugenius, 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 39 
 
 Proclus, a century later, claimed to be the hiero- 
 phant of all religions ; ^ lamblichus would have called 
 himself a philosopher of all schools. But the eclecticism 
 of the fourth century Neoplatonists was of the super- 
 
 Them. 23 a : eyyudeu 5 irarrjp avTcp, ris 84 ovtos 4(ttiv ouSe vfieTs 
 ayvo^^Te, ov rh vvofia dwSvri aTroxpv 5eT|at tt^v a.KpoTaTT]v (pi\o(ro(piav, Kal 
 ovre x'i'pos oijre eOpos ovre ttSXis ovSe/xia ttjs Evycuiov d6^T]S aviiKOOS. 
 Themistius himself declares that he owes his knowledge of philo- 
 sophy to his father, Them. 240 d : Set S^ Koitrhv to. ix^n to tra Sicokciv 
 K.T.\. , cf. 244 ; Eugenius expounded Aristotle La the spirit of the 
 later Peripatetics, who regarded it as a sacred duty to interpret his 
 hidden meaning. Them. 235 a : rrj^ <ro(pias V iK(7poi . . . rt/j.'piaffev 
 a(ra(p€ia . . . ah 5 k iyvfivovs rh 070A.ju.aT0, cf. 294 D. In the Paraphrases, 
 Themistius iTrixeipe7 i^dyeiv l/c rwv ^rnxdrcov iv ols iKelvos avrhv [rhv 
 vovv) Kudelp^e . . . rod firj iirlSpo/xop elvai to7s afjLvfjTOis, of. 319 et 0,1. 
 Paraphrases. Prooem. p. 2. 4. Sp^ 
 
 From the language of Themistius it seems probable that these 
 very Paraphrases, which brought him pupils in his lifetime and made 
 him famous as an Aristotelian commentator, were founded on lectures 
 delivered by his father, Them. 294 d: 6>oi v4a} ovn (rvyypdfjLfjt.ara 
 &TTa TreiroiTjTat iv ols rhv Kkrjpov KaTe64fir}v Koi iOrirravpiaa tiv irapa rSov 
 ifxwu iraripwv Siede^dfiriv. Yet neither Eugenius nor Themistius can 
 be considered pure Peripatetics. Eugenius followed the tendency of 
 his day towards a reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle, Them. 236 a : 
 TTphs fiev S^ UXdTMva rhv cr6(pov out6 avrSs irore iffTaaiaaev ovre 
 'ApttTToreATj ^oiSicos 4^''''^f 235 C : iroWdKis 'ApifrroTdXei trpoOvaas, els 
 tV UXdrcovos eKrjyev Upoupyiav. Themistius inclines to syncretism, 
 236 B : ovde/iia yap <pi\o(To<pia vSppo} aircpKiarai ttjs erepas. Cf. Simplic. 
 De Gael. 33 B, 12 : koL 6 Qeixiimos Kai roi ye ev ro^s TrAetcTTOty rhv 
 UepiiraTou irpoiax^p'-^vos, iu tovtq} (the nature of the heavy and the 
 light) To7s UXdruyos apea-Kea-Oat Soku fiaWov. Cf. Them. 27 A : 
 'AptCTOTeAouy hv irpouTa^c£;urjv rod fiiov re Kol ttjs (Totpias, with 366 C : 
 UKdruvi (Tvvwv T<p de(rire(rLCj} koL 'ApicTToreXei (rvvZiaiTUfxevos, Simplicius 
 himself took the same attitude as Eugenius. Simplic. Cat. 2, 5 : Se? 
 5e oljxai Koi rwv irphs TlXdrcava Keyofxivwv avTCf (t^ 'ApiCToreAet) /xtj Trphs 
 r^v \4^iv OTro/SAeVoj/TO (x6vov 5ia<f>ot}viav rwu <piKoa6<pu}v Kara^if]<pi^f(rQai, 
 ctAA.' els rhv vovv acpopavra rrju iv ro7s TrAeitTT ots crvfx<i)wvlav avruv 
 Ixveveiv. 
 
 * Marinus, Vit. Prod. c. 19 : rhv <f>i\6(ro(pov irpo<xi]Kei (ilvai) koivij 
 rod '6\ov K6afjL0v Upo(l>dvT7}v. 
 
40 JULIAN'S EELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 ficial, arbitrary sort. When a Platonic or an Aristotelian 
 doctrine could be distorted or a phrase borrowed to 
 help out his fantastic theories, lamblichus claimed 
 the authority of Plato or Aristotle.^ Where Plato 
 and Aristotle were at variance he did not scruple to 
 force them into agreement. The final appeal, how- 
 ever, for lamblichus and his followers was not to 
 human wisdom but to divine revelation. * The 
 doctrines of Aristotle,' says Julian, * are incomplete 
 until they have been brought into harmony with 
 those of Plato ; and that is not enough : they must 
 agree with the revelations granted by the gods.' In 
 these words Julian summed up the philosophy of his 
 day. 
 
 Neoplatonism, as compared with the rest of 
 philosophy, was from the first religious. It is its 
 eftbrt to enlist philosophy in the service of practical 
 religion that distinguishes fourth century Neo- 
 platonism from the Neoplatonism of Plotinus and 
 his forerunners. Plato's hints of mysticism were 
 brought out and systematised by Plotinus. Plotinus, 
 however, who had little faith in divination, and thought 
 magic unworthy the philosopher, would have been slow 
 to recognise his own speculations when they had passed 
 through the hands of lamblichus. The develop- 
 ment worked out by the Syrian branch of the 
 Neoplatonists was essential to the life of a school 
 whose chief aim had come to be the promotion of 
 Hellenism in the face of the rival attractions of 
 Christianity, and the personal aberrations of lamblichus 
 
 * Themistius hints at this tendency, 33 c : et ^70; ^Ji6va hvo f)i]ij.aTa 
 fitrafiaK^v koX ixeOapfidaas Trpbs vfias aypoiKi^oiiiriv oTa rh irohKa iiwQaffiv 
 ot v4oi nxdTwvos 6ia<rwTai ; cf. ib. 295 B. 
 
JULIAN'S EELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 41 
 
 and his contemporaries should not be confused with 
 Platonism as a whole. Such a generalisation as that 
 made in the saying of Falconet — 'Une secte ou il 
 falloit etre fou de profession ' ^ — shows a failure to 
 appreciate the part played by the Neoplatonists in 
 arousing and keeping alive an interest in philosophy 
 during the last centuries of the Eoman Empire, 
 In an age which had no power to originate, which in 
 philosophy, literature, and religion fell back on 
 ancient models, third century Neoplatonism represents 
 the only genuine revival. With lamblichus began 
 the decadence of Neoplatonism. For though we 
 may decline to accept as history the story of his 
 life as the credulous Eunapius tells it, we must 
 admit that in him and his contemporaries we no 
 longer find the severe spirituality that had marked 
 the school of Plotinus. 
 
 Julian wished to make Neoplatonism the philo- 
 sophy of the revived Hellenism, as Philo had tried to 
 make the Platonic philosophy the philosophy of 
 Judaism. He belonged by virtue of his date to the 
 younger or Syrian branch of the school of which 
 lamblichus was the head and virtual founder. Plotinus 
 he only once mentions, in passing ; with the writings 
 of Porphyry he does not seem to have been closely 
 acquainted.^ But of lamblichus he always spoke with 
 exaggerated respect,^ ranked him with Plato,'' and 
 
 ' M4m. Acad. Inscr. vi. 517 ; cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. pp. 91 sqq. 
 
 2 Julian, 161 c. 
 
 ' 222 B, SaifjL^vios; 146 b, S KXfivhs ^pats. So Proclus never 
 mentions lamblichus without the epithet BeTos, an honour which 
 he does not pay to Plato. 
 
 * 146 A : ToTy xp^^^''^ of/ ri juV rp (pxxm Kora^iiarfpov, 
 
42 JULIAN'S EELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 declared that he owed to his writings all his knowledge 
 of speculative theology — the Oecov yvcocri9,^ which he 
 * would not exchange for the empire of the world.' ^ 
 He tells his friend Sallust that he will find in lam- 
 blichus TO TsXos tyjs av6p(i)irlv7]s aoffylas,^ 
 
 This fanatical devotion was inspired in Julian by 
 a man whom historians have almost unanimously'* 
 condemned as an impostor, who disguised an un- 
 scrupulous practice of theurgy in the phrases of 
 philosophy. That view has been based on the authority 
 of Eunapius. But all that we absolutely know about 
 the direction given by lamblichus to Neoplatonism is 
 that he brought it into touch with the religions of the 
 East, which, in the fourth century, were more popular 
 than ever, and that the Neoplatonists who followed 
 him were rather priests than philosophers.^ Theargy, 
 
 ' 146 b. 
 2 222 B. 
 
 ^ 157 c. Cf. Julian, IPrag. 6: koX b KXuvhs r^fxtv eSet^e koX hpo(pdvTr]s 
 ^idfi^MXOS. 
 
 * Kirchner, Die PJiilosophie des Plotin, p. 216, is the only im- 
 portant exception. He considers that the transcendentalism oE 
 lamblichus must have saved him from the vulgarities of theurgy, 
 and regards the stories of Eunapius as pure fiction, but does not 
 attempt to explain away the evidences of belief in supernatural 
 manifestations which can be found in the writings of lamblichus 
 himself. The De Mysteriis has been rejected by Zeller, v. p. 716, on 
 account of its style. The Life of Pythagoras remains ; in the 
 UporpeiTTiKhs and the Commentary of ProoluB in Timaeum, the 
 chief source of the opinions of lamblichus, there is little trace of 
 superstition. But Photius, Cod. p. 173, mentions a work by I. 
 Philoponus, attacking the treatise of lamblichus ircpl ayaXixdrwv. 
 lamblichus had defended the theory that certain images had fallen 
 from heaven, iro\K^ /xev airiOava p-vOoXoySiv, iroXKa Se cis a8-i\Kovs (pipusp 
 ahias, iroWa Se kuI rots Spw/xevois ivavTia ypdcpeiv ovk alarx^v^fJ-^vos. 
 Cf . Photius, p. 337. ^ 
 
 5 Vacherot, L'Ecole d'Alcxandrie, p. 67, and cf. the saying of 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 43 
 
 as it was understood in the fourth century, had for its 
 aim the perfection of the spirit and the purification of 
 the soul of the initiated, through avTo-^ia. To 
 distinguish between self-delusion and imposture, in 
 such a case, is not easy, and, in the present state of 
 the evidence, it seems impossible to decide whether 
 lamblichus was a mystical fanatic or an impostor of 
 much the same type as Lucian's Alexander, though 
 more refined in his methods. That it was precisely 
 this mixture of reUgious mysticism and philosophy 
 that appealed to Julian's tastes we may be sure 
 from the fact that it was not to the Eoman senate 
 and aristocracy, then the real strongholds of Paga- 
 nism, that he turned for sympathy, but to the 
 Sophists of Athens and Antioch. Beugnot ^ re- 
 marks on this as a fault of diplomacy, and Boissier ^ 
 Iregards the narrow Hellenism which prevented his 
 enlisting Eome and the West to aid in his religious 
 revival as one of the causes of Julian's failure. But 
 Julian was too genuinely an enthusiast to have been 
 content with a religion of forms, maintained for 
 political purposes and unsupported by a solid basis of 
 his favourite Platonic philosophy. 
 
 It has been usual for the biographers of Julian 
 to accept without reservation the story told by 
 Eunapius of his relations with the representatives of 
 
 Proclus quoted supra. Libanius, Panegyr., says that Julian sur- 
 passed the priests of Egypt in his knowledge of sacred things ; cf . 
 ib. ii. p. 56 (of Julian) : ip reKerals /uupiojv bixiKiiaat Salfwai. Julian 
 himself, 180 b, prays for iv Oeovpyla TeXeiSr-qTa. 
 
 • Destruction du Paganisme, i. p. 216. 
 
 2 La fin du Paganisme, i. p. 94. Julian's natural preference 
 for Eastern doctrines is further shown by the fact that he regarded 
 even the Greeks as outsiders in religious matters, 147 A. 
 
44 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 the Neoplatonic school at Pergamum aiid Ephesua. 
 He relates that Aedesius, the successor of lamblichus, 
 himself grown too infirm to teach, handed over the 
 youthful Julian to Chrysanthius and Eusebius, his 
 pupils, telling him, in words which recall the asceticism 
 of Porphyry, that, once initiated into their mysteries, 
 he would blush to own a body.^ Eusebius seems to 
 have been the only one of the small band of the 
 followers of lamblichus to rate speculation {Ta9 
 fjLTj-X^avas hiaXsKTiKCLs) above theurgy {ra Oav/jbaroTrotcbv 
 spya).'^ But his warnings against theurgy and the 
 absent Maximus^ only inflamed Julian's curiosity, 
 which was fed by the miraculous tales told by 
 Chrysanthius, Julian repudiated the abstract teach- 
 ing of Eusebius, and hastened to Ephesus, to be 
 initiated by Maximus into the mysteries of avroyfria. 
 However reluctant we may be to admit the 
 evidence of so credulous and superficial a biographer 
 as Eunapius, we cannot deny that the outlines of 
 his story agree with the independent versions of 
 Libanius,'* and of Julian himself. Maximus wrote 
 nothing from which we might rehabilitate him, 
 and we must leave him to his biographer. It was 
 
 ' Eunap. Vit Max. 48-52. 
 
 2 Eunap. loc. cit. 
 
 ^ For the reputation of Maximus, at this time, see Libanius, 
 Or. i. p. 528 : t^s ^^ixtis Ttavraxot (pepofievrjs irdvres ot irepl tos 
 Movffas Kol rovs &\\ovs 76 deovs, ol fiev uSoiirSpovv, ol S' ^vXeoy, 
 triTivSovTes I5i7v re iKiivov kolI avrf^eviaQai. koX elirelv avrol re Kol 
 aKOvo'ai Xeyovros. 
 
 * Liban. Or. parent. § 9 : /coi irore rols rod n\druvos yeixovciv els 
 ravrhp iXdiov, aKovaas xnrip re 6euv Kol 5ai/x6vo)V, . . . Koi ri re ri 
 ^vx^ Kal ir6Qev %Ke^ .... ahixvpav okoV a.TTeK\v(raro r^ iroT^jU^ \6y(fi 
 K.r.\, 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 45 
 
 to his influence that JuHan's friends attributed the 
 final conversion to Hellenism which took place 
 about his twentieth year,^ and Julian's writings 
 testify to his lasting admiration of both Maximus 
 and Chrysanthius.2 All, then, that remains for 
 the student of Julian, when he has pointed out 
 the untrust worthiness of Eunapius, is to examine 
 those passages in Julian's works which show signs of 
 the superstition which, on the strength of Eunapius, 
 has always been associated with his name.^ 
 
 Of Julian's conviction that an uncritical belief in 
 the old national religion was not merely expedient but 
 absolutely essential for the preservation of Hellenic 
 culture and the maintenance of the Eoman Empire, 
 there can be no question. His vague ideal had been 
 the restoration of the old gods of Greece, but when he 
 
 ' Liban. Ep. 606 (To Maximus) : oT/xai Se koI irdvras d<pd\€iv <toi 
 X'^pi-v ' KOtvhs yap evepyfrrts <tv 777s T6 koI 9a\drT7]s . . . dp(\f/as t)ixlv 
 Koi dr]fiiovpyii(Tas fiaaiXeairdvra &Kpov. Cf, Gregor. Naz. Or. iii. p. 61 D : 
 ^A(Tia -fiv avTCf rh rrjs atrefielas SiSaff/faAetoc . . . iirel Se fjSr) tS>p eV 
 <pi\o(ro(pia doyfxdrojv Tjxf^aTo koi TT/f e'/c rod \6yov Trpo(re\d/j.0ave Sii/a/xiu 
 ovKiri Ko.T^x^f'V '6\i]v r^v v6<tov oi6s re ^v, and Liban. i. 528. 
 Libanius congratulates Maximus on his influence over Julian, 
 Paneg. i. p. 376. 
 
 2 Amm. Marc. 22, 7, 3 ; 25, 3, 23. Of the four letters addressed 
 to Maximus by Julian, two have been rejected by Cumont and 
 Schwarz ; Ep. 16, on insufficient grounds (see Appendix i.) But, at 
 any rate, Epp. 38, 39 are left to prove Julian's admiration for 
 Maximus. 
 
 ' See Aurelius Victor, Epit. 152, cultus numinum superstitiosus ; 
 and Ammian, superstitiosus magis quam legitimus sacrorum 
 observator ; in both of which passages, however, it should be noted 
 that superstitiosus was applied by the Romans to one whose obser- 
 vance of religion was considered excessive, e.g. Marcus Aurelius, 
 and thus had a slightly different connotation from its English 
 equivalent. 
 
46 JULIAN'S EELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 had fairly faced their numbers and given them back 
 their special altars and sacrifices, the Platonist revolted 
 in his blood. He recognised that for philosophers 
 and men of letters the old simple faith in the gods of 
 Homer could never take the place of the monotheism 
 that philosophy had been teaching for centuries. But 
 he was all the more sensitive as to the attitude of the 
 people towards the individual gods and the legends of 
 the poets.^ In public there must be no hint of im- 
 piety OTTCOS flT) TO) irXljdsL TTJS TOLaVTTjS CLp')(7]yol 
 
 OpaavTTjTos rysvoo/jLsOa.^ After relating with edifying 
 piety the miraculous story of the arrival at Eome of 
 the Mother of the Gods, he adds KaiTOi fis ov XsXtjOsv 
 OTL (j)7](T0V(nv avrd tlvss tmv \lav aocpcov vOXovs slvai 
 ypaSlcov ovK clvsktovs. ifxol Bs Boksl rats iroXso-t 
 Trtarsvstv /laXXov tcl roiavra ff rovrotai rots KOfjL-\jro2s 
 wv TO "yfrv^dpLov Bptfjuv fisv vyiss Bs ovSs sv ^Xsirsi.^ 
 
 Whatever may have been Julian's private and 
 philosophic uncertainties as to the grounds of his 
 religious creed, he never expressed them. The use of 
 the argument from expediency in such a passage as 
 that just quoted, unsupported as it is by any positive 
 reservations, is not enough to justify a doubt as to 
 his personal faith. The positive evidence points the 
 
 ' He approves of Plato's expression of belief in the popular 
 gods : "KiffTiiiiv jap airKws a^io7 Koi x^P^^ airodd^ecos Xeyofieuois, Sera 
 virhp Twv 6(wv (paffiv ot iroiriral, 237 B ; "without, however, recognising 
 that the Platonic passage of which he is thinking {Timaetis, 40) 
 was meant to be ironical. 
 
 ^ Hence his indignation with ot Svcrae^ea-raroi avQpdiiruv, who 
 laugh at the prohibition of certain foods, during the Mysteries. 
 
 3 161 B. For similar expressions, see 212 b,c, 222 c, 180 b et al. 
 For the passage in 161 b quoted above see reminiscences from the 
 Be^ublic of Plato, infra, chap. iii. p. 77. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 47 
 
 other way. Ammianus tells us that Julian consulted 
 the entrails at every crisis, and for his belief in signs 
 from heaven we have his own testimony. In every 
 case of doubt or difficulty there came to him, not 
 merely the negative guidance ^ granted to Socrates, 
 but positive encouragement and promises.^ Zeus 
 thunders on the right for Julian as often as for any 
 Homeric hero.^ 
 
 One of the ways in which philosophy had tried to 
 reconcile polytheism with its own belief in the unity 
 of God was the theory of demons. This effort to 
 relate the gods and the world was made as early as 
 Hesiod, though its interest for philosophy does not 
 begin till Plutarch developed the theory from Plato. "^ 
 It paved the way for the marvellous in religion and 
 philosophy, and that alone was enough to secure its 
 popularity in the early Christian centuries. As a 
 Neoplatonist, Julian believes in demons, good and 
 bad ; for it was one of the inconsistencies of the Neo- 
 platonists that, while they refused to believe that God 
 could be the cause of evil, they recognised evil demons 
 
 ^ 275 D the gods warn him not to send a letter to Eusebia ; 
 284 c he has a sign not to oppose the troops ; cf . Zosim. iii. 9 for 
 his vision at Vienna. 
 
 "^ 361 c the statue in the temple of Apollo gave him a sign, as 
 he called Helios to witness ; 286 d yevofx^vuiv KaKS>v twv tepwv ; 
 399 D the gods bid him sacrifice, and promise rewards ; 415 d. 
 
 ' Even Libanius, who was himself singularly free from supersti- 
 tion, encouraged Julian to think he had visions and direct help from 
 the gods ; i. 460. 
 
 * Plut. de I. et O. 560 ascribes the theory to Plato, Pythagoras 
 &c., but cf. Hesiod, 0. et D. 120, and see Plato, Sympos. 23, Plut. 
 de def. orac. 421, 314, de Is. 136, Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 696. Apuleius 
 did much to make it popular, de deo Socr. 6, et al» 
 
 OF THK 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
48 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 as divine agencies.^ The sun, he says, gives power 
 to angels and demons ; ^ some men are driven by 
 wicked demons into the desert,^ or pursued by them 
 on account of neglect of temple-worship. 
 
 Julian believed, with the Neoplatonists, that the 
 soul of man is imprisoned in its earthly body, to 
 expiate a fall ; '* that matter is evil, and that the effort 
 of one's life should be to flee from it ; ^ that on the 
 success of this effort all happiness depends.^ But this 
 is not all. If Julian had stopped here, as Plato had 
 done, he would have separated himself from his cen- 
 tury and his school. It was here that Neoplatonism 
 joined hands with religion. This airadavaTiaixos rrjs 
 yjrvxv^ (Procl. in Tim, 5, 39, 1) is reached by know- 
 ledge of the gods ; ^ and this knowledge is attained in 
 the state of ecstasy,^ the ecstasy of Plotinus.^ Julian 
 
 * Julian sacrificed to the demons of the night, Liban. Paneg. 
 
 2 145 c. 
 
 ^ 288 B ; cf. Plut. de I. et 0. 561 : 6 RevoKparfis oUrai (hai (l)v(ieis 
 4u rc^ irepi^xovTi /jLcydAas fieu Kai Icrxvpas, dvffrpOTrovs Se Ka\ aKvOpuTvas 
 al x°-'^P^^^'' ''■"'^ roiovrois ; 288 a. With Julian's theory of a demon 
 in us cf. lamblich. Protrep. 12. 17 : rj/xels rov Sai/xova alpoi^iQa 
 k.tA., and ih. 15. 2 : 6 ^oQfXs koX avyKhr^puOeU tj/jlTv airh rwv Qtwv 
 
 4 198 b : -rhv TT/s i/zux^s deaixSv ; cf. lamblich. Protrep. c. iii. p. 11 
 KuXveTUi (ii(TT€ fL^ ZvvatrQai pa^ioos i^ieiai Koi tup Setrncou inroXvtaQai ; 
 Julian, 169 c : ovpavddev iirr-q^i^v ds tt]v y^y koI 'iniao^icv, 
 
 ^ 166 c ; 248 b. 
 
 * 194-7 ; 180 b : SfSou Traai fikv hvQpiirois evSaifiouiau ^s rh Ke(pd\aioP 
 rj Twv d(wv yfSxris icrriv, 
 
 ' 218 A ; 221 D. 
 
 * 178 b : OTO.V yap f) ^vxh rraffav tavr^v Si^ to?s deo75, '6\a rh Ka<f 
 favT^y iTrirp€\pa(ra rois Kpeirroaiu . . . oyros obdephs ^oiirhv rov dTreip- 
 yofTOS Kol ffxiToSl(ovros . . . avriKa /xtv ahrdis iWdfiTTei rh (puis. 
 
 3 With Julian, loc. cit., cf. Plotinus, Enn. vi. 9, 9, 10 : 6pav St; 
 fffriv (PTavda KUKuvoy Koi (avrhy ws opav depus, iavrhv fi^p iiy?.aX<rix4voy, 
 
JULIAN'S BELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 49 
 
 describes it as a sort of Bacchic frenzy ^ reserved for 
 the initiated.^ Without this delirious enthusiasm Hfe 
 is thrown away, because deprived of the Osmv yvcjacs.^ 
 It is always in the language of the Mysteries that 
 Julian speaks of things divine, which are, for him, 
 the highest philosophy.^ The greatest boon he can 
 ask of the gods is proficiency in the hidden things of 
 the Mysteries,^ initiation into which lamblichus had 
 thought essential for the Neoplatonic philosopher.^ 
 He speaks in veiled language, from the standpoint of 
 the initiated, and is always on the brink of reveal- 
 ing, but never reveals, the secret doctrines unintel- 
 ligible to the crowd, Osovpyoh Bs rols ^aKapiots 
 yvcopt/jLa."^ Yet from such phraseology as this it would 
 be unfair to argue superstition. Allusions to the 
 mysteries and metaphors borrowed from them are 
 common in Greek literature from Plato down. The 
 language of initiation was used especially with refer- 
 ence to philosophic doctrines, and we have met with 
 it even in a writer as free from superstition as 
 Themistius.^ 
 
 ipcerhs vXriprj i/or}TOv — (pus aurh KaQapbv .... %arai Se '6re koX tJ> (Tvvi-)(\s 
 tarai ttjs 64as ovk4ti ipox^ou/xivw. 
 
 ^ 221 D : JfcTW Aidvvaos avrhs ^ Koi irpoaevxonai rds re i/xas /cal ras 
 vfi€Tepas iK^aKx^vcai (ppevas iirl ttjv aAridij rwv dewv yvwaiv. 
 
 - 218 A : vfji.wi> rols TToWois offoi ricDS icrri tovtwv afxvr]Toi t^v 
 ovriaiv holi.v. 
 
 3 222 A ; 172 d ; cf. Iambi. Frotr. iii. 11, 15. 
 
 * 223 A. 
 
 * 180 B. 
 « 237 D. 
 
 ' 172 D : ot.yva)(rra ipd Tip avpcper^ ; 218 A : fiovu inl rfj yXcirTr] — ncpl 
 yap tSov app7]Twv ovZiv xp^ Xeyeiv ; cf. 174 r, 159 A, 148 A, 152 b, 185 c, 
 157 D, 239 A. 
 
 « Themist. 2 b, 235 a, 71 a ; Damasc. Vit. Isid. ap. Photius, 337 : 
 
 E 
 
6d JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 lamblichus and his followers believed in the 
 possibility of a visible revelation of the gods.* Julian's 
 references to theurgy are, as a rule, too vague for us 
 to be able to decide as to his attitude to such miracu- 
 lous manifestations. A passage in his seventh oration 
 seems at first sight to indicate a belief in them. He 
 is expounding the hidden truths of the Heracles myth, 
 and his language throughout is confused and contra- 
 dictory. He is indignant with those who interpret 
 literally the tale of the birth of Heracles and his 
 earthly career in human form. Heracles is indeed 
 the son of Zeus in the sense in which Athene is his 
 daughter, as a hvvaixis emanating from him,^ but 
 Julian will not admit the human element.^ As for 
 the adventures of his childhood, ravTa fisv virrjp^s, 
 fiei^ovays hs fj Kar avOpccirov, * They say,' continues 
 Julian, * that Heracles crossed the sea in a golden 
 bowl, but my belief is that he walked on the waters. 
 To Heracles all things are possible.''* Zeller^ quotes 
 
 T€\os exef ^Xiri^dv el ttjj YlXdruvos Sidvoias etcea tSjv a?ivT<av SuutfOelT] 
 diafia\e7v. Perhaps the best example in Plato is Phaedrus, 250 b ; 
 cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. 57 : Etenim Plato in Phaedro cum docere vellet 
 quantum oblectationis habeat inquisitio et investigatio veri (^ rSov 
 uvTws oi/Tuv 64a) exemplum sumit a mysteriis contenditque animos 
 e rerum superarum immutabiliumque cognitione plus voluptatis 
 capere quam divinae species initiatis afferant. 
 
 * Auct. de Myst. i. 8. 
 
 ' See infra and 149 b. 
 
 ^ Julian in his philosophical writings is usually a strong oppo- 
 nent of anthropomorphism, though we can hardly say with Naville 
 ' L'anthropomorphisme lui est tout k fait stranger ; ' cf. the assertion 
 of 219 B and 82 d, the deuu j4ptj are a<pavTi alaO-fja-ei koI dv4(piKTa, dis- 
 cerned with difficulty even by the kindred vovs, with contra Chr. 200 a, 
 where Asclepius assumes the human form. 
 
 * 219 D. 
 
 - « Phil der Griech. v. p. 720. 
 
JULIAN'S EELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 51 
 
 the passage to illustrate the belief of lamblichus and 
 his school in visible revelation. But Julian goes on : 
 * For all the elements bow down before the demiurgic 
 and efficient power of that pure and undying intelli- 
 gence which Zeus made to descend to earth by the 
 aid of Athene.' By making Heracles a hvvafjus, Julian 
 seems to put out of question the physical appearances 
 of the legend.^ Julian's treatment of the Dionysus 
 legend (221) leaves the reader altogether in doubt as 
 to whether he believed in the actual manifestation of 
 the god on earth. 
 
 It is easy enough to find such inconsistencies in 
 Julian's religious professions. *Peut-on concevoir/ 
 says Beugnot,^ ' que le meme homme qui sacrifiait 
 avec une visible devotion ait dit que les simulacres 
 etaient faits non pour qu'on les regardat comme des 
 dieux, mais afin d'exciter les • hommes a la piete ? 
 C'est que toutes les idees de Julien n'etaient point 
 encore fixees. Si sa jeunesse ne devait pas lui servir 
 d'excuse, on trouverait dans I'etat de la philosophic 
 paienne au quatrieme siecle de suffisants motifs pour 
 I'absoudre.' To this we may add that what is true of 
 most of the Neoplatonists, from Plotinus to Proclus, 
 remains true for Julian. In his personal conduct he 
 may have been carried away by the prevailing interest 
 in theurgy and the Mysteiies. But the spiritual 
 character of the Neoplatonic philosophy that had 
 
 * Professor Shorey suggests that the parenthesis %v . . . vfi/6/j.iKa 
 219 D is a passing sneer at the Christians, and should not be taken 
 too seriously ; and has pointed out another possible sneer in 144 b : 
 yevva jxeu (V KSafica Thv 'A(TK\'f]Triou, ex^t Se avrhp koX irph tov K6a/bL0u 
 Trap" lauToJ. 
 
 ^ Destruction du Paganisme, i. 209. 
 
 e2 
 
52 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 raised Plotinus above the superstitions of his day had 
 been sufficiently preserved in the fourth century to 
 save its followers from embodying the grosser forms 
 of that superstition in their writings. 
 
 Julian's writings, as has been said, hardly rank as 
 a contribution to Neoplatonism. But his two philoso- 
 phical Orations serve as good illustrations of v/jlvol 
 <^uo-t/^otV and one of them (Or. 4) perhaps supplies 
 the place of a lost treatise of lamblichus {irspi 6swv)y 
 of which it may have been little more than a copy.^ 
 Like all the Neoplatonists, lamblichus had built his 
 theories round the framework of a trinity.^ Julian 
 follows him in the main with his trinity of the Koafios 
 oparoSf or visible universe,'' the KoajjLos vospos, its 
 model, relieved from the imperfections of matter, and 
 represented in the oparbv by the planets, and, thirdly, 
 the Koapuos vo7)ro9, over which rules the supreme 
 principle of the Good, or the One {rb sv) not to be 
 grasped by the intelligence. 
 
 Julian's vpLvo^ was not meant to be a complete 
 
 ' See Menander's definition apud Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, iii. : 
 (Iff] 5e TOiovTOi {(pvffiKol) vfxvoi Urau ' ATr6\\a}U05 vfivov \iyovres il]Kiov 
 avrhv eliai (pdcrKu/JLev, Koi Trepl rod rjAiov t7]S (f>vffews SiaAeyw/xeflo 
 K.r.\. 
 
 2 Julian, 150 d, 157 d ; Iambi. Protr. p. 120 ; Festa et Pistelli ; 
 Azict. de Myst viii. 8. 
 
 ' Or, rather, a series of trinities. For, as their transcendental 
 conceptions of the spiritual world removed it further from the world 
 of sense, the Neoplatonists needed to multiply such media, in order 
 to maintain the relation between the two. 
 
 * Julian's trinity has been thoroughly treated by Zeller and 
 others, especially by M. A. Naville, L^envpereur Julien et la philo- 
 Sophie du polytMisme ; a work which has rendered superfluous any 
 further treatment of this part of Julian's philosophy. Only a brief 
 outline, therefore, will be given here, for the sake of completeness. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 53 
 
 exposition of the theology of the school ; his main 
 object was the glorification of his favourite deity — the 
 Sun. He tells us that he was born a sun- worshipper ; ^ 
 of his peculiar calling to follow in the Sun's ^ train he 
 has private proofs, which, with an affectation of to 
 (TSfivov, caught from the Neoplatonists,^ he will not 
 reveal.'^ His devotion was spontaneous ; the state of 
 ecstasy into which it threw him had not been inspired 
 by books.^ Sun-worship was no new thing in the 
 Roman Empire, and, for Eoman Emperors, the cult 
 had had a special attraction, from the days when 
 Augustus built his temple to the Palatine Apollo, and 
 Nero tried to identify himself with the god. As the 
 Roman Empire came into closer contact with Oriental 
 beliefs, the cult became more and more popular, and. 
 
 • 130 c, cf. Amm. Marc, xxii, 5, 1 : a rudimentis pueritiae primis, 
 inclinatior erat erga numinum cultum. Cf. Liban. i. 375 : tV M*" 
 Zi&voiav vy^7]\oT 4 pav iroiwu ttJ twu ovpaviuiv fiadr}aei. Allusions to the 
 Pythagorean doctrine of the importance of the deupia rod ovpapov 
 are frequent in Neoplatonic literature. Iambi. Protr. p. 12 : fi ixera 
 TavT7]v yvdifJLr] (of Pythagoras) iroiiirai t^v irapaKXticriv koX -naffav rr]v 
 TtipX rhv ovpavhu deupiau, and ibid. p. 115 : (pi\oa6(pei rbu ovpavhv opuv 
 KoX Thv ^Kiov, (pcos TC (TOi TTJs aXtjOeias •^7eicr0a>, eVi Oeoiis 5e Kal ao<p[av 
 5ta T^s Tuv ovpavicou eVto-Ke'if/ews avepxov. Cf. Julian, 143 B : 6.Kovi 
 ^7) TrpuJTOv '6<Ta (paalu oi rhv ovpavhv ovx oj(nrep 'liriroi koI I36es opUvTes dA.A' 
 (^ avrou t)]v acpavrj iroXvirpayfiouowTes (pvcriu, and 148 C. And, for the 
 Platonic authority which Julian and lamblichus may have had in 
 mind, Timaeus 47 A : 6\pLs — aWia tt}? /xeyiaTris Wi^eAe/as rifxlu, oti tujc 
 vvv \6ycov . . . ovdels &u ttotc ippiidr) ixr]re &arpa /xr]T€ 'r^Kiov fir)T€ ovpav'bv 
 
 l56pTCl}V, K.T.A. 
 
 ' *H\iov OTraSJy. 
 
 ' Cf. Iambi. Frotr. 21, p. 106, on Pythagorean maxims : to itap 
 avTo7s aTrSpprjra, Kal ix^H-vQovixeva Trpbs rovs avdaaKTovs 'napaKnr6vri5 
 avf^eTacTTa. 
 
 * 130 c. 
 
 » 131 A. 
 
54 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 finally, Aurelian established games in the Sun's honour 
 at Eome, and traced his parentage to the Sun-god.^ 
 
 The identification of the Sun with Apollo is found 
 throughout Greek literature, but, for Sun-worship as 
 Julian conceived it, he could not go to Greek sources ; 
 it is to specifically Eastern influence that we must 
 trace the peculiar form of worship that we find in the 
 third and fourth centuries of the Eoman Empire. 
 That influence is marked by the introduction of the 
 name Mithras. Mithras-worship first makes its 
 appearance among the Eomans towards the end of the 
 Eepublic, in the time of Pompeius.^ But, while the 
 cults of Isis and Serapis had been received with all the 
 hospitality that the Eomans extended to new deities, 
 the Mithras cult gained ground slowly, and not till the 
 time of Hadrian and the Antonines had it secured an 
 equal footing with the others. Thenceforward, how- 
 ever, it gradually overpowered them, and soon con- 
 tested the supremacy with Zeus himself.^ Julian 
 worships his Sun-god under the name of Mithras. 
 
 One of the objects of his vfivos was to show the 
 
 ' Preller, Myth. ii. p. 408 ; Julian, 156 b, speaking of the ferioe 
 Soli invicto : iroiovn^v 7i\ici> rhv Trept^aj/cVraTOj/ ayCova. t^v kQpr))v '¥L\i(p 
 
 2 Plut. Yit. Pomp. 24. The pirates of Cilicia reAercCs rivas 
 awopp/iTovs ir4\ovv wv t) rov Midpov koL Mf'XP* SeCpo diaffcv^erai Kara- 
 SiixQi'io-a vpuTov utt' iKeivcou. Because in certain of its rites the Mithras 
 cult recalled the sacraments of the Christian Church, Tertullian 
 called it a ' Satanic plagiarism of Christianity.' Cf . Beugnot, i. p. 58. 
 
 ' Boissier, La Religion Romaine, p. 383, Julian, 155 b : €)■ aoi 
 fisra TOVTO (pairjv ws Ka\ rhv MiOpav rifxwfxev Kal dyofiev 'H\ia rerpae- 
 TTjpiKovs aywvaSy ipw vedtirepa. Julian speaks scornfully of the ignorant 
 Greek attitude to Eastern doctrines, 147 a : a^vverov iVws Ktyca roh 
 E\\ri(riv wairep 54ou fx6vov to. (rvvkQi) koX yvcopifjia \4yeii/ ... 5 co<pa)' 
 rxTOi Ka\ afiaffaviarus to. iroWa 7rapa5ex<5/A€vot. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 55 
 
 unity of Hellenic and Oriental religions, and here he 
 was in harmony with the monotheistic teaching of his 
 age. The identification of deities, Hellenic, Koman, 
 and Eastern, had been going on for centuries, and the 
 Neoplatonists, in their effort to reconcile theism and 
 polytheism in their theology, naturally pushed the 
 tendency to its furthest limits. Apuleius ^ shows us 
 how far this unifying process had been carried in the 
 second century. This doctrine of iinperium penes 
 uniim, qfficia penes multos, which dates back to the 
 Stoics,^ is carefully elaborated by Julian in order to 
 secure the supremacy for his favourite Helios.^ He 
 followed Plotinus and lamblichus in making the 
 supreme principle the li/or aya66vj more transcend- 
 ental than Plato's ayadbvj because no longer identified 
 with, or rather on the same plane with, vov9,* though 
 like the Platonic ayaOov it presides over the voijtos 
 Koa/jLos, where rule the Intelligible Gods, the Ideas. "* 
 Next in rank to these vorjrol 6 sol, whom Julian 
 leaves as vague as the Platonic Ideas, come the 
 
 ' Apul. Metam. xi. 5. 
 
 2 Servius ad Verg. Georg. i. 5 : Stoici dicunt non esse nisi unum 
 deum et unam eandemque potestatem, quae, pro ratione ofl&ciorum 
 nostrorum, variis nominibus appellatur. 
 
 ' For the identification of the Sun with other deities see Macrob. 
 Sat. 1. 17, 4 : diversae virtutes solis nomina dis dederunt ; and the 
 whole chapter. 
 
 * For this, the conventional view of the relation of vovs and t^ 
 ay a eh V in Plato, see Zeller v. 476 etal. ; and for a wholly different 
 interpretation, see Professor Shorey, in the University of Chicago 
 Classical Studies, i. 188, note. 
 
 ^ The notion of classified gods, votjtoI and voepo), was imported 
 into the Neoplatonic system by lamblichus. Cf. Kirchner, Die Phil, 
 des Plotin, p. 212 ; Auct. de Myst. 8, 8, p. 271, Parthey ; 5io yivti 
 irepiKofffJLicop T6 Koi virepKOfffiiwv dewv k.t.A. 
 
56 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 vospol Osol, in whom the faculty of vovs is both 
 active and passive as bestowed by the Sun.^ He is 
 the chief vospos 6 so 9, and, as such, is the object 
 of JuHan's adoration. The material Sun, which we 
 see, is an image of him, as the visible planets are 
 images of the votjtoI OsoiJ^ 
 
 Julian had Platonic authority for making the Sun 
 the ayaOov skjovos,^ and a god,'' and for giving 
 him a soul.^ He disposes of the dya66v and the 
 vorjTos KocTfjios in a few words and devotes the rest 
 of his exposition to the Sun. The three members 
 of his trinity were sharply divided. The Sun fur- 
 nished the link that relates them to one another 
 {o-vvo')(^ri Tis). Inasmuch as he is the link between 
 the immaterial koct^ol and again between them and 
 the world of sense, his /Meaorrj^ is not one of place 
 alone, but of influence ; he is the unifier.*^ 
 
 ' 145 B : Tots I'oepoh rh voe7u Kot vo&^crQai Trape'xe'. 
 
 - Contr. Christ. 65 b (Neumann); cf. Boissier, p. lll,Naville, p. 101. 
 
 ' Bep. 508 B, 506 d, et al. 
 
 * Rep. 508 A. 
 
 ^ Plat. Laws, 967 : for the analogy of the Sun in Neoplatonic 
 doctrines, see lamblich. Protrejp. p. 17 : anh tujv yvwpijxwv . . . 5i* 
 avaKoyias iuapyovs . , . rh rhu ifi\iov tuv S-crrpwu vTTep4x^it^, ovSeia 
 AeArjfle, Kai rh rbp vovv rr^s "^vx^s eivai i^apxavra k.t.X. 
 
 « fx^ffSTrjs is the regular Aristotelian word for the mean ; and has 
 a local, temporal, and ethical significance. But there is no evidence 
 that it was used in the active sense of ' mediator ' before Julian. 
 There is a curious passage in Plutarch, which seems to indicate that 
 the local iJ.€<T6Trfs of the Sun was a Persian doctrine. De I. et 0. 46 : 
 Kcu Trpo(Taire<paiueTO rhv jUei/ (the principle of good) ioLKei/ai (pwrl fxdKLara 
 Tuv al'yQr\TU}v, rhv 5' (the principle of evil) ifx-noKiv (TKSrcp koI ayvoia, 
 ixiaov 5e aficpolv rhu MiSpriv chat, dih Kal MiOpTju Il4paai rhu Mecrlrrju 
 oi/ofid^ouaiv. Now fiea-drrjs is the New Testament word for 
 •mediator,' and is soused by Polybius, Diodorus, and Philo. Pos- 
 sibly, therefore, there may be more than a local /xecc^TTjs indicated 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 57 
 
 To what extent Julian borrowed from lamblichus 
 the details of the numerous fieororrjrss^ of the Sun, 
 we cannot decide. But we learn from Proclus ^ that 
 lamblichus had written of the middle term of one of 
 his intellectual triads in much the same words as 
 Julian uses of the Sun. To the vospos /coo-fios the 
 Sun gives the unity, harmony, and intelligence that 
 he has received from the ayaOov, For the visible 
 world he is the sole source of light and order. The 
 Iz/ or ayadov is too remote for adoration, and 
 Julian's system results in a practically monotheistic 
 worship of Helios. 
 
 But Julian's revival was in the name of polytheism, 
 and if he could not restore, in the fourth Christian 
 century, the old naive faith in the gods of Homer, 
 he nevertheless could not omit from his creed the 
 numerous deities whose temples and altars he had re- 
 built. The world of Hellenism, for which he wrote, 
 was no longer content with deities whose nature it did 
 not know, and for whose actions it could not account. 
 
 in the Plutarch passage. M. Naville has pointed out the resemblance 
 between the Sun as mediator and the Christian Aoyos, which Julian 
 may have had in mind, and we may add Philo, De Sonin. 586 d : 
 2Tt Tots iiriKrjpois T]yuv crupfcpepe ixeairais koL SiairriTais K6yois xp^o"^"'- 
 
 ' 142 A : iv fiearois Teray/xevos Kara iravTOiav fjLi(r6Tr]Ta . . . reXejo- 
 rrjTOS Kal (Tvvoxvs Koi yopifiov C'^rjs Koi rrjs ivoeiSovs oifcrias ra /jLtcra 
 ex«v iu iavTcf. Proclus ill Tim. 259 n, quoting lamblichus, uses 
 phraseology which strongly resembles Julian's. 
 
 2 Procl. in Tim. 94 c. . In this triad vovs comes first, rov 5e fx.4<Tov 
 Koi r^v (rvfiirKiipccffLU avvdyovros tSov toiovtuv rh yduifxop tcjc B^cop koI rh 
 ffvvaywyhv rojv rpicav koX rh ttjs iv€pyeia<: airoTr\r)pooTiKhv Koi rb irpo'ihv 
 iravrl kol to ayaQovpyhv ixdAKTraoeiyfiara \iyovcn. Cf. Zeller, v. p. 691. 
 Other passages in Proclus which seem to prove that Julian followed 
 the phraseology of lamblichus are In Tim. 297 c, 140 c, 49 c (cf. 
 Julian, 153 b and 144 b), 94 b, and especially In Tim. 292 e, f. 
 
58 JULIAN'S EELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 Here Julian took advantage of the syncretism, 
 which, as has been earlier indicated, had been going 
 on for centuries. The old names, endeared by the 
 associati6ns of Greek and Latin literature, could be 
 retained without endangering the supremacy of 
 Helios. Julian identified Zeus, Helios, Hades, ^ and 
 Serapis.2 It is evident at once how far he had strayed 
 from Homer. The omnipotent Zeus of Greek my- 
 thology is degraded to a BijfjuovpyiKrj Svva/j.c? ^ which 
 works with Helios, and has no separate existence.'' 
 Homer is quoted to prove the identity of Helios and 
 Oceanus.^ Tradition had made Athene the child of 
 Zeus. Julian rejects the ordinary version, and regards 
 her as the manifestation of the intelligent forethought ^ 
 of Helios, identified with Zeus, as Dionysus is the 
 vehicle of his fairest thoughts,^ and Aphrodite the 
 principle that, emanating from him, charms and 
 gives life to matter.® Julian did not forget the gods 
 of Egypt ; places had been assigned to Mithras and 
 
 ^ 136 A. Cf. PJiaedo, 80 d, and Cratylus, 403 e, passages not 
 meant to be entirely serious. 
 
 ^ Cf. Ep. 10. 378 : rifMcov otn ol 6eol Trduns Koi iv irpurois 6 firyas 
 SapoTTts &px^^v i5iKalw(rav ttjs o'lKoufxeurfs. Cf. 311 A. Serapis has his 
 seat in Heaven as the brother of Zeus. 
 
 ' 143 D. It may be noted that Proclus in Tim. 121 d calls the 
 demiurgus iro\vdiJuaixos. 
 
 * Julian even attempted to prove from Homer the superiority of 
 Helios over the other gods. 136 d. 
 
 ' 147 D. 
 
 ^ 149 B. So Eomulus is the offspring of the Sun, as identified 
 with Ares. 154 c. 
 
 ' 144 A. 
 
 ^ 150 B. She is the a-vyKpacris and <pi\ia of the ovpdvioi Oeol 
 and gives generative force to the earth. For Apollo as AsclepioS 
 see Julian, 144 b, c, and cf. Procl. in Tim. 49 c, where the similarity 
 of language suggests that Julian here copied lamblichus. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 59 
 
 Serapis, and the Egyptian Horus is Helios under 
 another name.^ Julian contrives that all the gods 
 shall play their parts as manifestations of the power 
 and beneficence of Helios.^ 
 
 In common with all who have called in philosophy 
 to support their religious theories, Julian believed 
 that a philosophic interpretation of myths was neces- 
 sary for the genuine dewv yvaxrcs. His treatment 
 of them is ethical and metaphysical, and naturally 
 has nothing in common with the rationalising method 
 of Euhemerus.^ Although, as we have seen, he explains 
 his gods and demons as hwdfjLSLs, it must not be 
 supposed that he intended, like the Stoics, to deprive 
 them altogether of personality. The Stoic method 
 was opposed to the spirit of Neoplatonism, and we 
 find Plutarch protesting against their treatment of 
 individual gods. 
 
 For Julian every myth is an allegory with a philo- 
 sophic and instructive content which must be brought 
 out by allegorical interpretation. It is an act of piety 
 to free these hidden ideas and give them their true 
 philosophic meaning. Plotinus had used the fables 
 about the gods mainly as poetic ornament, but he too 
 was far from regarding their allegorical interpreta- 
 tion as an intellectual game. They were invented by 
 
 ' 148 D. C£. Menander apud Spengel, Bh. Gr. iii. : Ufpcrai ere 
 MiOpav K4yov(riv '^Clpov Alyvnrioi. So Julian identifies the Phrygian 
 Cybele and the Greek Demeter, 159 ; Hermes and Ares with Moni- 
 mos and Aziz, 150 ; the Phrygian Attis with Dionysus, 179. 
 
 * JuHan is tolerant even of the God of the Jews, 454 a : hv ed 
 olS' Htl Koi 7)iJ.eis &\Kois QepaTT^vofxev bvd^iaaiv. 
 
 ' One instance of the Euhemeristic method occurs 220 d. 
 Semele, says Julian, was not the mother of Dionysus, but was a 
 wise priestess. 
 
60 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 ol TrdXat cro^ot, in order that truths too sacred for 
 direct expression might be disguised in riddles.^ 
 Plotinus attempted no systematic treatment of myths, 
 though in several passages he indicates their meta- 
 physical and ethical significance.^ But Julian's aim 
 was to account for the pagan deities in a system of 
 religion and ethics, and his treatment of mythology 
 is in consequence more elaborate, though he works on 
 the same lines as Plotinus. 
 
 All the Sophists delighted in allegorising,^ but 
 whereas Themistius, Libanius, and, still more, 
 Himerius, employed their allegories as literary orna- 
 ment, Julian always allegorises with a didactic pur- 
 pose. For him every myth was a riddle, and therefore 
 to be solved. The poets who wrote the myths were 
 inspired with the truth — eZra svpovres saKsirao-av 
 avTCL ^vOoLs TrapaSo^otp^ This very paradoxical ele- 
 ment is intended to turn our minds to the hidden 
 truths. For laymen the myth is enough : ^ — rol^ Ss 
 irspiTTots, the knowledge of divine things can only 
 then be useful, et ns s^srd^wv avjr]v vcj)^ rjys/xoai tol9 
 OsolSf evpoi Kal Xd^oi, Bid tmv alvtyfMdrcov vTroixvrjcrOzis 
 
 * Ennead. v. 1, 7 : oi fiv6oi ol irepl deuv alviTTovTai Kp6vop fxkv 6ehv 
 ffotpdrarov irph rov Aihs y^vecrOai, and ib. iii. 6, 19 : ol iraKai <TO(t)o\ 
 . . . ali/iTTS/xevoi, 'Y^pfxriv jxkv iroiovai rov apx^uou rh ttjs yev^fficos 
 vpyauov, and ib. i. 6, 8 : oTov anh jxayov KipKrjs (pricrlv r) Kahv^poiis 
 ^Odvcrcrevs ali/iTTSfjLei^os. 
 
 ^ E.g. The One is Ovpavhs ; KpSuos is NoCs; Zei/s the world-soul, 
 &c. V. 8, 10 ; iii. 5, 3. 
 
 * Themist. 304 d, Hermog. De Id. p. 269, 18 sqq., Baumgart. 
 Aristides, p. 63, Aphthon. Progym. p. 26, 10 sqq., Theo. Prog. p. 76, 
 5 sqq., ap. Spengel, Bh. Graec. 
 
 * 170 A, 222 c. The incongruous in a myth summons us to 
 inquire into its underlying meaning. 136 c. 
 
 ^ 266 D. Myths are like india-rubber toys, which help children 
 through teething. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 61 
 
 oTi XPV '^sp'f' cLVTwv ^rjTSLv.^ A myth must aim at 
 expressing the being of the divine.^ The demon 
 theory here played an important part. The lesser 
 gods of Greek mythology are demons as well as 
 BvvdfMsis. Heracles was a good demon who after 
 his work on earth became a god.^ 
 
 In his actual handling of details Julian sometimes 
 uses the free method of interpretation that he had 
 himself ridiculed in his second Oration.'* And, like 
 the other Neoplatonists, he sometimes employs 
 phrases which imply human weaknesses or chrono- 
 logical development for his divinities, and then with- 
 draws those phrases, explaining that they must be 
 taken in a sense that denies such an interpretation. 
 So the descent of Attis occurred ovk aKovalcds rols 
 
 dsols, KOl rfj TOVTCOV Mr]Tpl, \syO/JLSV7J Bs cLKovaicos 
 
 fysviaOai.^ Julian is always willing to abandon the 
 details of a myth if they do not harmonise with his 
 general conception. 
 
 Inseparable from his belief in the unity of religion 
 
 ' Cf . Plat. Theaet. 152 C : toOto rifuv /xfv -^vl^aro, r^ iroW^ 
 (Tvp^perc^, TOis 5e fxadrjTois iv . aTropprjTw t^v a.Ki]Qeiau eAcyev. Cf. 
 Putarch's definition of a myth, De I. et 0.: 6 [jlvOos .... \6yov rivhs 
 efj.(paais eVrtj/ avaKKwpros i-rr &\\a tV Siduoiav. 
 
 2 218 D : T^s Twu d€wv oixrias els Svuafiiu iaToxa-ffixiva. 
 
 9 219-20, cf. Plut. De I. et 0. 27, for the same idea. Plutarch's 
 treatment of myths often resembles Julian's, though it is not so 
 metaphysical. 
 
 * 74 D : TtSppuiQev 'iXKovTCs Kol ^laQojx^voi TCtii' ipycav ras 6(xoi6Tir]ras, 
 Kaddirep ol tovs jjlvQovs i^rjyovixevoi twv TrotrjTWi' koX avaXvovres is \6yovs 
 TTidavovs Koi ivdexoiJ.4vovs ra irKdaiiara Ik fxiKpas irdyv rrjs viroioias 
 dpfidofxevoi kol afxvSpas Kiav TrapaXa^6uT€s ras apxas ireipuvTai avfiireiOeiu 
 us Sr) ravrd ye auTO iKeivwv i6eX6vTa}v \4yeiu. 
 
 * 171 B : d-yara/creT /wey ovk4ti dyavaKTOvcra 8e \4yerai, and 171 D ; 
 (KiTfacbu juey avTuv ovdauws iKire(re7v Se XiySfxfVos ; and 149 B. 
 
62 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 was Julian's theory of the unity of philosophy, a 
 theory which, in an age of syncretism, was not peculiar 
 to the Neoplatonists.^ But it is in Julian's sixth 
 Oration that we find its most systematic expression ; 
 and probably no other writer, except perhaps lam- 
 blichus, had thought it so essential to his conceptions 
 of Philosophy and Eeligion. Julian treated the 
 question from the ethical side. As truth is one, so 
 philosophy is one ; ^ we may approach it by different 
 roads,^ but the tsXos of any one school, rightly inter- 
 preted, is found to be identical with the ts\o9 of any 
 other.'* The Cynic yv(o6o crsavrov is but another 
 readingof their 7ra/3a;^ajoa^oy ro z/o/xtcr/xa;^ both, 
 again, are in harmony with the Stoic ideal of life in 
 touch with Nature — o/jLoXoyov/Msvcos ^rjv rfj (fivasc,^ and 
 the Platonic ofMOLcoorts tw dew.'^ So Pythagoras, 
 Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Antisthenes 
 followed sv TL fcal ravrov.^ 
 
 Julian excepted Epicurus and Pyrrho from this 
 general reconciliation ; and this was natural. He would 
 not admit that their rsXos was ethical; and the 
 universal scepticism of the Pyrrhonists and the 
 Epicurean rejection of the supernatural were alike 
 
 > Cf. footnote on Themistius and Eugenius supra, p. 38. 
 2 184 c. 
 ' 185 a. 
 
 * 183 A. 
 
 * For, i> yvovs kavrhv, OTrcp iOTiv, aKpifiois flfferai /col oux Zirep 
 vofxi-C^rai, 183 B. 
 
 « 186 A. 
 
 ' 183 A. 
 
 8 188 C, cf. 185 a: rohi irpa-r evcravras iv eKaffrr) ruv aipfff€b>v 
 ffKovelru (tjs) koI (vpi)(rei irdvra a-vficfxtiua. For the harmony of Stoic 
 and Peripatetic doctrines, see Julian, Ep. 17, 386. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 63 
 
 incompatible with the uncritical faith that he was 
 trying to restore.^ 
 
 His aim throughout his vfjuvov was to provide the 
 Hellenic counterpart of the positive revealed religion 
 of Christianity. Hence his insistence on the inspira- 
 tion of Homer, Hesiod, and Plato. And we can trace 
 to this effort the statement that the allegorical inter- 
 pretations of the mysteries are not mere hypotheses, 
 whereas the doctrines of the astronomers of the day 
 deserve no higher title. ^ 
 
 Julian rejected the Epicureans and Sceptics mainly 
 on the score of their critical attitude to religion. The 
 Cynics were, from the first, Deists, who scoffed at 
 polytheism, image-worship, and oracles. All Julian's 
 sophistry could not explain away the independent 
 monotheism of Diogenes ; ^ Antisthenes laughed at 
 initiation ; Demonax nearly brought upon himself the 
 
 > Julian naturally could not admit an ahrSfxaTos (popa Kal tvxv, 
 162 A. Themistius, in his desire for syncretism, was more liberal, 
 and even criticises his father Eugenius for having omitted Epicurus 
 from the KaraXoyos of philosophers, 236 a. Elsewhere, however, he 
 is less friendly to Epicurean doctrines, e.g. Or. 34. 74. Even Julian 
 defends the Epicurean \a6h fiictxras, 255 b. 
 
 2 423 A, 149 c, 136 b, 137 c et passim, cf. Macrob. Sat. i. 17, 2 : 
 cave aestimes poetarum gregem non ab adytis philosophiae mutuari. 
 01 fihv yap (the philosophers) Sewu ij daifidvcoy fieydXwv Sij riccov clkov- 
 aavTis (paaiv, ol Se (the astronomers) viroTiQtvrai rh iridavhv e/c ttjs irphs 
 ra <pan6(i^va cvix^oivias, 148 B. That a preference for theurgy over 
 mathematics was characteristic of the Neoplatonists, we may gather 
 from a comparison of Proclus, in Tim. 258 c : aXKa tuv (xlv fiaQt]' 
 fiaTiKwv ov iroXvs \6yosiriOavo\oyovvT(i)i/' 6 Se deovpyhs ovrus oUrai k.t.X. 
 It is true that in this case Proclus is merely accepting the Platonic 
 rejection of mathematical -KiQavoKoyia as distinct from mathe- 
 matics generally ; cf . Aristot. Ethics, i. 3, 4 : fiadrjfxariKov . . . Trtdavo- 
 \oyovuTos, which is an echo of Plat. Theaet. 162 e. 
 Or. vi. 199 et al. 
 
64 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 fate of Socrates, ore ovrs Svcov ctx^Orj ttcottots ovts 
 ijjLv^qOrj /jlovos airdvTwv rats ^^XsvaLvlais} Oeno- 
 maus of Gadara wrote a work against oracles.^ Yet 
 Jalian not only accepted the Cynic riXos, but ex- 
 pressly declared that Cynicism was worthy to rank 
 with the highest philosophy.^ There is more than 
 one explanation of this inconsistency. The Cynic 
 ascesis, and the life Kara (fyvo-iv, as interpreted by 
 Diogenes and Antisthenes, appealed strongly to his 
 personal tastes."* But apart from this, the canonisa- 
 tion of Diogenes had become a literary tradition, and 
 if Julian had refused his tribute of admiration, he 
 would have found himself in sympathy with only one 
 writer of distinction — the scoffer Lucian.^ This 
 would have been a singularly false position for Julian ; 
 for one of the grounds of Lucian's scorn of the Cynics 
 had been their belief in a divinity, his only bond of 
 sympathy with them their ridicule of polytheism. 
 Julian shared the sincere admiration which the Cynic 
 ideal of life had won from such men as Epictetus,^ 
 
 ' Lucian, Deinonax, 11. 
 
 ' Julian, 209 b. 
 
 ' 182 C : eVetS^ Thp KvvKT/xhv dB6s ri ^i\oaoq>ias thai crvfi^f^rjKerf 
 oH Ti (pavKdTaTov oi'Se aTifJi6raTQV, aKKa toTs KpariaTois iuafiiWov k.t.A. 
 Apollo, not Heracles, is the true patron of Cynicism, 188. 
 
 * The ignorant crowd had always laughed at the Cynic ficKTjo-ir, 
 and there Julian sympathised with the Cynics, 198 a : rwv Kwikuv eJf 
 irov Tis yeyove airovSaios, i\e€iyhs 5oKe7. 
 
 ^ Bernays, Lucian tind die Cyniker, pp. 46 sqq., has explained 
 Lucian's antagonism to the Cynic sect. For his attitude to Diogenes 
 see Vit. Auct. 11. 
 
 ® Epictetus recognised the divine mission of the true Cynic : tIv 
 TOLs a\T]6e{aLS KvviKhy etSfVot SfT, '6ti &yye\os airh rov Aibs air4(naATai 
 vphs Tovs avdpctiitovs irepl ayadup Kal KOJiSiv vnohei^wy avToIs Sri ire- 
 •KXiv-qrai k.t.K., Diss. iii. 22. 23. 
 
JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 65 
 
 Dio Chrysostomus, and Maximus of Tyre.^ But, like 
 them, he had nothing but invective for the Cynics 
 who were his contemporaries. These Cynics of the 
 fourth century, who, with their mode of hving, had 
 survived the abstract theories and systems of most 
 of the other schools,^ seem to have still held, by pro- 
 fession, to their founder's conception of life. In the 
 confused times in which Julian lived, there can have 
 been few types that had changed so little, outwardly, 
 from their originals as the Cynic.^ There was little 
 room for change in the members of a school whose 
 philosophy was wholly negative — meant as a protest 
 against the artificial world around it, whatever the 
 phase in which that world might happen to be. It is 
 the brawling Alcidamas of Lucian,'' or Plutarch's 
 Planetiades,* and not the dignified and witty De- 
 monax, who typifies the later Cynic.^ The reasons 
 for Julian's dislike of practical fourth century Cynicism 
 lie close at hand. They were bad citizens with their 
 
 ' His thirty- sixth Dissertation is a panegyric of Diogenes. Epic- 
 tetus, Diss. iii. 22, 80 : aK\' e/s rohs vvv anofiKfiroij.fv rovs rpaTre^Tjas, 
 irvXawpovs, oi ovShv fiiixovvrai iKeivovs; cf. Julian, 197 B, and for the 
 ideal Cynic cf. Epictetus, iii. 22, 13, with Julian, 200 c, d. 
 
 2 S. Aug. Con. Acad. iii. 19, 42 : Nunc philosophos non fere 
 videmus nisi aut Cynicos aut Peripateticos aut Platonicos ; et 
 Cynicos quidem quia eos vitae quaedam delectat libertas atque 
 licentia. 
 
 ' ^aKTvpia, rplfiwv, kS/xt], rh iurevdeu afxadia, Opdaos, haixOT-qs koL 
 irdvra anXws ra roiavra, Julian, 225. 
 
 * Lucian, Lapithae. 
 
 * Plut. De Def. Orac. 7, 41B. 
 
 ^ Some of them wished, like Gencmaus and Heraclius, against 
 whom Julian's sixth Oration is directed, to shake off the authority of 
 Diogenes. Cf. J. 180, 181 : avijp KwiKhs Aioyivri <pr\(T\ kcvoSo^ov, 
 and 236 b : vphs robs Kpariarovs twv KwikcHi^ ii ris &pa ^ari vvv 
 roiovTos K.T.\. 
 
 V 
 
66 JULIAN'S RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY 
 
 negative cosmopolitanism ; ^ they set an example of 
 laziness and immorality ; their illiteracy was offensive 
 to Julian as a man of letters.^ But it was the dis- 
 credit they brought on philosophy in general,^ and 
 their ridicule of the religion that he w^as trying to 
 revive, which roused Julian to write his two orations 
 against them. Their resemblance to the Christians, 
 which had been pointed out by Aristides,'' naturally 
 did not recommend them to Julian. 
 
 ' J. 224 B : KaTo\e\ot7raTe t^v irarpiSa Sicnrcp iKeluoi (of ra\i\a7oi). 
 
 ^ 227 A. 203 B : et a-fiiKpa rhs fiifi\o\)s aveXlrTcvv i/xeX4ras . . . eyvus 
 ttv , . . dw' ovK ecTTi aroi rovrcov ovdlv k. t. \. ; and cf . 237 A. For Cyni- 
 cism as a refuge for those who had failed in other professions, cf . Luc. 
 A pancTai and Peregrinus the ex-Christian. All who aimed at rh 
 Trept^SAeTTeo-eat, says Julian, find tl^eir opportunity in Cynicism, 
 225 B : TU>y l>T]TopiKa)V ol SvCfxadea'TaTOi . . . bpixSixnv eVl rhv Kwiffixov, 
 
 ' 223 D ; irpos Toov a.Kpoo)ii4vwv oi ZC vfxas ttjv (piXoaocpiav eKTpenovTai, 
 Of. Aristid. vol. ii. p. 401 : k<p€6-Td,(ri rwv 'EK\-f}vwv. Cf. Julian, 225 a. 
 
 * Vol. ii. p. 402 D : to7s iv UaKaKrrivri Bvffaefiicri. TTapaTrKi](noi rovs 
 rpSnovs. Cf . Julian, 224 c ; "(crtos 8e i(a\ dia rh firi^ev vfJLwy elvai irpSaxflP-o- 
 Tov (popo\oye7i/ fvirpoffdirws dirolov eKclvois, %v Kiyovaiv ovk oW oirais 
 i\i7\pL0crvjn\v, rh 5' 6.\Ka 76 ir&vTa iarlv vfuv re KaKelvois ■Kapav\-{]<ria. 
 KaraKeXoivare t7]v irarpi'Sa Sxrirep eKeTuoi, irepicpoirarc itdprr) k.t.\. 
 For cases of Cynics becoming Christians, see Bernays, op. cit. note 21. 
 
67 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 Julian's style and vocabulary 
 
 A CRITIC of Julian's style is at first inclined to recog- 
 nise two distinct classes in his works, and to separate 
 those that may be regarded as the fruit of a careful 
 study of Rhetoric, or were, at any rate, composed in 
 comparative leisure, from those that are obviously, as 
 well as professedly, autoschediastic. To the first class 
 would naturally belong Orr, i.-iii. ; viii. ; Ep. ad 
 Themistium ; Ep. ad Ath. ; Frag, Ep. ; Caesars ; 
 Misopogon. In the second class one would place 
 Orr. iv. v.^ vi.^ vii., and most of the Letters. 
 
 Yet, even in the panegyrics, which, as has been 
 indicated,^ betray a technical knowledge of epideictic 
 oratory, we frequently find the excuse of the layman,* 
 and the effort to disarm the criticism of ol Xlav a-o<f)ol 
 and 01 KOfi-yjrol pijropss (77 a) is natural enough in a 
 man who had sufficient taste and training to know 
 how far his own compositions fell short of his models. 
 The stock excuse of haste,^ or lack of professional 
 
 * 178 D : Or. v. was written in one night, without preparation ; 
 Or. iv. in three nights, 157 c. 
 
 2 203 C : irdpepyov r]fM4paiu Svo7v ; cf . 216 A. 
 ^ See supra, analysis of Or. i. 
 
 * E.g. 2 A, 3 c, 2 D, 120, 125 a, 126 b, 105 a. 
 
 * We learn from Isocrates, Or. 412, that it was a commonplace in 
 
 r2 
 
68 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 ease in writing, has more significance than usual in 
 the mouth of a soldier and statesman, who had to 
 snatch from the business of the court or the camp his 
 opportunites for literary composition. And it is 
 Beldom absent from Julian's works. ^ If he does but 
 compose a letter he protests that the style of a man 
 of affairs must not be judged by the rhetorician's 
 standards.^ 
 
 All his work, even when not autoschediastic, shows 
 here and there a lack of the file, as will be indicated 
 later. He is singularly free from anacolutha,^ and 
 his frequent parentheses are usually short, and rarely 
 confuse the narrative. His style in narrating, as seen 
 in the historical parts of the panegyrics, is simple and 
 straightforward.'^ In the Misopogon and the Caesars 
 it is concise and often dramatic. His philosophical 
 writing, however, is darkened by the obscurity that 
 came of the effort to make a clear statement of argu- 
 ments which he had had no time to arrange, and of 
 
 a rhetorical procemium to plead us e| avroyviov yeyouiv tj 
 Trapaa K evi). 
 
 ' O7: ii. was written in Gaul, 56 b, 101 d : i/xol re oh (txo'Kt] tcs 
 fxovcas €7ri toctovtov depainveiv^ dW' uipa Xonrhu vphs %pyov TpeireaOai ; 
 cf . 3 c, 105 A. 
 
 ^ 374 A, D, 428 B : ei ri Tj/xapTrirat fx)] viKpus i^era^e jutjS' ws p-iirwp 
 pT}Topa. 
 
 ' 19 C : 5 Se uTrep rrjs apxvs . . . Sokwu fiefiovXevaOai . . . irocuv 
 (iraivoov 6,^iov Kpivei ris ; 200 B : ivrvx^ov . . . ou5ej/ dtrjaei rhp &vSpa ; 
 329 B : irphs iKeivrjv fiXeiroov ovShv %fieKev avrS ; . . . 30 C : dirdaots 
 tlpiivr\s fiiXii Ka\ r^v dfxSvoiav ew iravrhs cr4pyov(xiv; 23 C : e/CTrArjTTO^eyot 
 . . . ol iroXe/jLioi . . . ijpx^ro /xtp oiiSeis. Cf. 167 D, 239 B. 
 
 * Such curious arrangements as 36 b : SiaXvOdcrris Se, 01 (TTpanuTai, 
 Trjs Tct^ewy, and 32 D : ot 5e<Ao), rup iroXefiicov eV o\p€t, (TTpaTriyoi, are 
 infrequent, but Cobet (in Mnemosyne, x. 433) in suggesting the 
 transposition of the words of the last passage seems to make hardly 
 enough allowance for the affectation of the period. 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 69 
 
 theories which he himself only vaguely realised. Thus 
 he labours to be coherent, and by force of repetition 
 becomes confused.^ Sometimes the tautology is so 
 glaring that we must suppose it to have been in- 
 voluntary. ^ It occurs most frequently in the philo- 
 sophical works, which were hastily written and never 
 revised. But it is so conspicuous in the more studied 
 orations that we are justified in regarding clumsy 
 repetition as a characteristic of Julian's style.^ 
 
 Ammianus records that he was a great talker : 
 linguae fusions et admodum raro silentis ; ^ his loquacity 
 is reflected in his writings. The use of synonyms 
 was a rhetorical device to give fulness {irspi^oXrj) ; ^ 
 Julian carries it to excess.^ He is fond of digressions, 
 
 ^ Instances of this are Or. iv. 140 c, d : et tV eV roh vot]tois 
 &Xpo-VTOV Ka\ Kadaphv &v\oj/ ovaiaf voijaaifiev . . . vKijpr} Trji 
 o'lKeias axp^vrov Kadapdrrjros, r-fju re 4v t^ Kocr/xq) Kiav elKiKpivrj 
 Kal KaQapav (p6<nv axpo-vrou ffw/xaros ivprjaofiev Koi ttjv rod 'HXlov 
 Kafiirpav Kal a/c^poTOV ovaiav a/Kpolu fiecrrju, rrjs re iv rols voT}ro7s 
 av\ov KaOapSrriTOS Kol rrjs iv ro7s atVflrjToTs axpd-vrov Kal 
 UfAiyovs irpbs yevecriv Kal (pQophv Kadapas (IXiKpivelas. 
 
 2 144 B, c and 166 d with 167 a ; 185 c with 186 a and 231 a : 
 2» ZeO TTCtrep ^ 8 rt croi (pi\ov ovojxa Kal Sttojs ovoiJid^^(TQai ; 132 A : th 
 Ke(pd\aiov . . . rrjs avdpwirivrjs iv rcf Svvacrdai (ppdCetv Svvdixfws ; 249 A : 
 he heaps up three equivalent proverbs to express one simple idea ; 
 64 A : i^avafito/jLev avdis ets ^xvos Kal 'dOev i^4fi7]v. 
 
 ^ 21 C, D : KOTeo-Trjcras . . . KaraaT-qadyiivos . . . KaTia-Trjaas . . . 
 jcoTe'o-TTjrros. Here Beiske would omit the last ; but cf, 17 a : Kara- 
 (TT7j(7aMf»'oj twice ; 153 a: /caTacTTjo-ayueVots twice ; 30 b: vpoa-Kadrj/xivos 
 — ■npoa-KadrjfjL^va ; 42 D-43 A : irdKai (rrepo/xevois . . . (TTCpofjievois vdXai ; 
 152 B, c : Karevo-fjaafxiv twice ; which seem to put emendation out of 
 the question ; 26 a is peculiarly awkward : XP^ • • • ^oyiCeadai . , . 
 rh 8h vTToXaPelv . . . rb Se Aoyl^effdai. 
 
 * Ammian. xv. 4. 
 
 * Hermog. de Id. p. 321. 
 
 ^ E.g. 49 E : ypahrffpiov ap/xoa-dfievov Kal KiBdpav ^deiv Ka\ vfivuv ; 
 339 D : SxTTTfp Tiv^ <{>6pov ^ dacr/xbv il(T(pipwv Kal airoSidovs. Such 
 
70 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 and usually indicates his return to the subject by a 
 66 £v 8' £^s(B7]v,^ a favourite phrase with the fourth- 
 century rhetoricians, who constantly wander into 
 Platonic digressions^ and illustrations from Greek 
 literature. 
 
 It was from them that Julian caught his trick of 
 harping on a classic phrase or metaphor. Thucydides, 
 or Sophocles, or Plato may have used such a phrase 
 once ; Julian will repeat it half-a-dozen times. Plato 
 and Sophocles had each once used the verb ivTrjKscv 
 to express the depth of an emotion.^ Julian imitates 
 them five times. 
 
 He wrote the reminiscence Greek of the revived 
 literature, and every page of his writings is full of 
 echoes of the Greek masterpieces, the close study of 
 which, for the purposes of oratory, was indispensable 
 to a Sophist's training.'* Julian often cites passages 
 with the author's name, but his more usual method is 
 to weave into his prose half- verses, phrases, and even 
 
 collocations as I^to koL Bepairevoi, durreva-ai Koi KoXaKevffai, xa'pw Kal 
 yeyndiis, must strike the most casual reader of Julian by their fre- 
 quency ; a good instance is 317 d : ^v to a-wfxa Siavyea-Tarou ku\ 
 Siacpav4<TTaT0V uairep rh KaQapwrarov koX uKiKpiviararov (pus. 
 > 288 c, 59 c, 64 a, 69 d, 92 d, 190 a, 200 b, 226 d, 266 c. 
 
 2 Julian apologises for the frequency of his own digressions into 
 philosophy, 69 n. 
 
 3 Soph. El 1311, PI. Menex. 245 ; cf. Julian, 130 c, 226 a, 251 d, 
 206 B, 378 A. So, too, Aristides, p. 417 d. It may be noted that, 
 while Julian uses /xSyis koI ayarrriTcos five times (345, 273, 369, 142, 
 276), in Aelian and Aristides it occurs only once. So Themistius and 
 Libanius worked into almost every oration the sentence aT/ceTrat 
 rh rifidofievov {Rep. 551 a). 
 
 * Cf . Liban. Or. 65, p. 438. His pupils question the advantage of 
 their rhetorical studies, ' for which they have to read so much 
 poetry.' 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABtTLAEY 71 
 
 whole sentences without any such acknowledgment. 
 His use of Homeric quotations is an exception to this 
 rule. While, in the majority of cases, he weaves in, 
 or slightly alters his reminiscences of Plato or Euri- 
 pides, he usually indicates, either directly or indirectly, 
 the source of Homeric phrases or verses.^ The reason 
 for this may have been that w^hile he had no hesita- 
 tion in using an Attic phrase, however poetical, he felt 
 that Epic diction was out of place in prose.'^ Julian 
 quotes Homer more frequently than any other author. 
 Among prose writers Plato is naturally his favourite. 
 His Neoplatonism would have accounted for this. 
 But, apart from that, he was merely following the 
 example of all the writers of late Greek prose, whether 
 Neoplatonists or not. Even Aristides, who took 
 Demosthenes for his model, has more than twice as 
 many purely Platonic as purely Demosthenic words in 
 his vocabulary ; and what is true of Aristides is still 
 more true of Themistius and Libanius. 
 
 The direct reminiscences in Julian will be dis- 
 cussed later. But, even supposing them to be a com- 
 plete collection, they by no means represent the 
 influence of Plato on Julian's language. It is from 
 the half-phrases and subtle allusions ^ that occur on 
 
 ' Out of 135 Homeric quotations less than a dozen are without 
 such acknowledgment. 
 
 - The following are instances of Epic phrases worked in without 
 indication of their origin : — X'^J'^^' '^^^ X«'^"'o^> 50 b ; Icrov dvjuhv 
 eXOi/res. 241 ; ^-x^to &'C(Tto5 &(pai^TOs, 59 ; dvTcvdeu iXovTes, 123, 229 ; 
 KOvpiZiOV &v5pa, 110 ; e»c tcDv oToi vvv fiporoi claiv, 248 ; veS>v ep/xara, 27 ; 
 oKKvvTuv Koi oKKvfxhwv, 27 (cf. II. 4. 450) ; iyvwKws rb irX-ficnov opos 
 afx<piKaKv\l/ai ttj TroAeJ, 28 ; /Sowv a.yf\r], 37 ; ctxrircp irar^p ijirios, 345 ; 
 UaTpoKXu) i-n-lripa (pepwu, 351 ; ouS' ttv rjficov au^p, 118 A [11. 12. 382). 
 
 ' A few of these may be given for the sake of illustration : — 145, 
 
72 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 every page that we feel the extent of Julian's 
 familiarity with his author. 
 
 In his free use of poetic diction, Julian again 
 follows the tradition of the prose writers of the post- 
 classical period. Poetry had been for centuries in the 
 shade of Khetoric (Kohde, Griech. Roman, p. 332), and 
 poetical composition seems to have been out of fashion 
 in Julian's day.^ But the use of whole verses and of 
 poetic phrases and w^ords was always recognised 
 by the Sophists as an effective means of giving 
 yXvKVTTjs'^ to their prose, and it became more and 
 more popular, in spite of the efforts of the rigid 
 Atheists,^ until it reached its climax in the prose 
 poetry of Himerius. In Julian's genuine writings 
 
 yeuvav iv Tcp Ka\<^ ; 148 C, Sxnrfp to. fiocrK'{]fxara Qidopovvns [Hep. 586 A, 
 fiocK-nfiaTuv ZiKtiv ^XfTCiiv) ; 70 B, yT]ivou (Tufjia [Pliaedr. 246 c) ; 308 a, 
 v'^ eearov ; 350 C, tJAis ^St? Tpv(pwaa (Rep. 372) ; 23 B, 26 a, irviyovs 
 ^cifxri {Laws 633 c) ; 42 b, avrh rh naXSv ; 25 C, iv dfiaX^ Koi \eiep 
 {Tim. 34 b) ; 82 b, xpo^V ttoXiou; 124 b, iro\ihv rhv vovv {Tim. fiddnfj-a 
 TToKibu XP'^^V) ; 197 B, TToXvK^cpaKov drjpiou {Rep.) ; 297, Oecoi/ nrrifxa 
 (Phaed.) ; 248 b, baois amicus /Se^twrat ttjs roiavrrjs Bias ; 85 B, avd-yKt) 
 ireivriv Sia fiiov {Laws, 832 a). 
 
 ' Misop. 337 B : acpaipelTai 5e tV kv toTs fxeAeat /novcriKr^v 6 vvu 
 iiriKparcou iv rols iXevdipois rrjs 7rai5eias rpSiro't. alax'-^^ J^p ^^vai 5oKe7 
 vvv uovaiK^v iTTirrj^eveiv ^ TrctAai ttotc idSKei rh TrXovntv aSiKcas ; cf. 
 Liban. Ep. 1113, Themist. 347 b : to. fffiiKpa ravra Kal x«/*o*C']^« 
 (of poetry). 
 
 2 Hermog. De Id. p. 362. 10 Sp. 
 
 ' Schraid, Att. i. p. 208. Dion. Hal. praised Lysias for abstaining 
 from poetic diction {De Lys. 3), and censured Plato for using it {Ad 
 Pomp. 2). The following are among the more noteworthy phrases 
 worked into Julian's prose : — 43 b, iv Blkt) koI irapa Siktjj/ (Pind.) ; cf. 
 114 C, 227 D ; 370 a, Xtfjihv aXoi-qrripa Pp6T€iov ; 383 n, pl^pov ^ iroTaix^ 
 kKv(Tov; 255 a, ih awfia ry fxrjTpl yfj Sovvai ; 97 A, iroO^ivhs rots (piXois ; 
 109 D, yap.i]\iov avd^ai Aa/xTraSa; 247 C, eVeTat vfipis K6p(f', 25 C, vews 
 iQuvTTjp — oipixaTos iiriardTris : 211 B, y^iv irph yrjs {3Lsch. ; Aristoph.). 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 73 
 
 there is no approach to the lyrical style of Himerius.^ 
 His poetic vocabulary shows a wide range of reading, 
 but in measuring the influence on his style of his 
 study of the poets we have to note some curious 
 omissions. It is perhaps significant of the taste of 
 his age in poetry that, while there are many remini- 
 scences of Euripides in Julian, there are none of 
 Aeschylus, and very few of Sophocles or Pindar. Even 
 his references to Euripides are confined to four plays, 
 and, with the exception of Homer, a close knowledge 
 of whom may be taken for granted in an educated 
 Greek of any period, Julian concerned himself far 
 more with prose, especially the prose of Plato and 
 Aristotle. His neglect of the lyric poets is con- 
 spicuous. His use of special authors may be tested 
 by the following statistics.^ 
 
 According to Schwarz, Julian's quotations of 
 Homer ^ number Iliad (82), Odyssey (53), Hesiod (7), 
 Theognis (1), Sappho (4), Anacreon (2), Simonides 
 (3), Pindar (7),'^ Sophocles (4), Euripides (16), Mel- 
 anthius (1), Epicharmus (1), Eupolis (1), Aristo- 
 
 • Cf. Him. Or. i. 2 and xiv. 10, and ire.0(i> Se koI -koQoi k.t.\. in 
 Or. i, 19, for specimens of his florid poetical diction. 
 
 2 The following figures are drawn from an article by Schwarz 
 (Philologus, \o\. 51 A. 1892. ' Julianstudien'), andthe reader is referred 
 to it for the exact references. The collection of reminiscences there 
 given was based on the indications given by Hertlein in the critical 
 iiotes to the Teubner edition, though a few additions were made. 
 But the collection was by no means complete, as the additions given 
 below will show. 
 
 3 It should be observed that Schwarz has collected from the 
 Letters to lamblichus and from the Letters rejected by Hertlein, 
 while I have not taken into consideration here, or at all in this 
 chapter, the letters above mentioned (see Appendix i.) 
 
 * Add Julian 290 b quotes Pindar, 01. 7. 49 (noted by Hertlein). 
 
74 
 
 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 phanes (6), Philemon (1), Menander (1), Herodotos 
 (5), Xenophon (3), Demosthenes (8), Heraditus (5), 
 Empedocles (1), Plato (51), Aristotle (16), Hippocrates 
 (2), Theocritus (3), Callimachus (1), Crates (2), 
 Babrius (2). 
 
 To these I would add the following, arranging 
 authors in the order observed by Schwarz : — 
 
 Iliad ix. 380 and 401 : 
 ov jap ifjLol '\jrv^i]S durd' 
 
 ^COV K.T.X, 
 EUEIPIDES. 
 
 Androm, 368. 
 
 J. 120 D : ov TOP STTL 
 JTjS .... dvTa^iov K.T.X. 
 
 J. 97 a: ovTLcpavXoTSpov 
 spy OP rj 'Ypolav kXslv.^ 
 
 Phoen. 551. 
 
 J. 200 c. 
 
 Phoen. 517. 
 
 J. 73 c. 
 
 Hipp. 183. 
 
 J. 250 D : virspopcov dsl 
 
 
 T(ov irapovTwv k.t.X."^ 
 
 EUPOLIS. 
 
 
 ArjfM. 6. 
 
 J. 33 A and 426 b: Tra^oi 
 
 
 Toh '^slXsO'LV K.T.X, 
 
 Xenophon. 
 
 
 de Rep. Lac. 15, 7. 
 
 J. 14 D. 
 
 Anab. 7, 1, 29. 
 
 J. 198 c: pLvplas opyvids 
 
 
 Kara yrJ9, 
 
 Demosthenes. 
 
 
 Or. xviii. 18. 
 
 J. 33 c : iroXsfjios . . . . 
 
 
 OiroloV TOP ^(OKLKOV d/covo- 
 
 
 /jbsv avaTTjvai (Pet.).^ 
 
 * This is rather a proverb than a direct reminiscence, though 
 Hertlein has not included it in his collection of proverbs in Index. 
 
 2 This seems better than to refer it to Democr. frag. 31. 
 
 9 A famous locus; cf. BheU Graec. (Spengel), ii. p. 324, 2; 329, 3; 
 iii. 20, 26 ; 139, 20. 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 75 
 
 Demosthenes — continued. 
 Or, xviii. 23. 
 
 Or, xviii. 47, 52. 
 
 Or. xviii. 61. 
 
 Or. xviii. 59 : airaprav 
 Tov Xoyov Tr]9 rypa(f>rjs. 
 
 Or, xviii. 153 : wairsp 
 ')(eilxdppovs^ K.T.'k, 
 
 Or. xviii. 169 : kairspa 
 /jLsv yap rjv , . . . /carsl- 
 XyTTTac. 
 
 Or. XX. 461, 15 : rfj Bh 
 
 TLflfl .... BcOpsds. 
 
 Or, xxi. 153. 
 
 J. 267 a: ^ocj Kal 
 fiapTvpofiac. 
 
 J. 203 c: aXV ovfc 
 
 ECTTL .... TToOsu; TToXXoV 
 
 rys Kal Bsl.^ 
 
 J. 26 c : Tvpdpvcov 
 ^opdv.^ 
 
 J. 64 a: dirapTCLv tov 
 Xoyov Kal diroirXavaaOai 
 TTjs viroOsaews.^ 
 
 J. 29 D, 34 c. 
 
 J. 26 B : r)v jMsv yap 
 6 '^si/jLcbv . . . rjKS Bs dyysX- 
 
 \(0V TL9 , , , KaTStXrjTTTai.* 
 
 J. 44 B, c. 
 
 J. 364 d: drjBlas , , , , 
 diroKvalcraL. 
 
 Or, XXV. 52: iropevsrat J. 99 b: Birjpfisvwv . 
 
 r)pK(hS TO KSVTpOV. TCL KSVTpa.^ 
 
 Plato. 
 
 Phaed. 83 d : Xvirrj 
 TO acb/jua. 
 
 J. 136 B : XvOslaas 
 avTas ('^fp^ay) crcofMaacu 
 
 STSpOLS TTpOO-TjXol. 
 
 * Koi ijl)]u at iiriKpiffeis roiavrai, oTov, Tr66ev ; iroWov k.t.\. B. G. 
 (Spengel), ii. 382, 32. 
 
 2 Theon, ap. Spengel, ii. 68, 1. 
 
 * An instance of Julian's love of amplification. 
 
 * A favourite passage with the rhetoricians ; Aiict. trepi v\\/ovs ch. 
 10; Spengel, ii. 346, 17 ; 349, 20 ; 326, 23 ; iii. 140, 7 ; ii. p. 70. 
 
 * Hence Cobet prefers to read here the uncompounded verb. 
 
76 
 
 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 Plato — continued, 
 Phaed. 63 c. 
 
 Phaed. 62 b. 
 Republic, 577 e. 
 
 Republic, 354 B. 
 Republic, 493 A. 
 Republic, 416 : ra 8s 
 
 STTLTrjSsta .... OaOV fJL1]TS 
 
 TTSpislvai — fjb')]Te evBelv 
 Republic, 382 d. 
 
 Republic, 377 : On 
 myths .... iy/cpLTEov 
 . . . and tone of passage. 
 
 Republic, 618 b : svda 
 Brf . , , , 6 irds KLvhvvos, 
 
 Republic, 489 A : a^p7]a-- 
 
 TOL Tols TToWols ol SITISI' 
 
 KsaTaTOi T(x)v ip (j>(Xoao(f)la, 
 
 J. 212 B : Ota Trpos 
 ayaOovs Bsairordf (roijs 
 Oeovs), 
 
 J. 276 B : el re rcov crcov 
 KTTjfMaTcov airoarspOLr] os 
 
 K.T.\. 
 
 J. 50 C : ')(^pr) Tovs fiEp 
 ^aaiXsas .... Iva /ir) 
 /jLsra/jLsXslas avrois 6 0los 
 
 flSCTTOS y, 
 
 •J. 69 c : coaTTEp .... 
 ol \[')(yot, K.r.X. 
 J. 78 c, D is an echo of 
 
 the passage. 
 
 J. 92 A : ovre avOahss 
 
 .... OVTS fjL7]V ivBeSS TOiV 
 
 avayKalcDV k.t.X., cf. 
 
 J. 86 D-87 A for an echo 
 of the simile of the bad 
 shepherd. 
 
 J. 221 d: Bca rb ayvoslv 
 
 STL TTSpl aVTOiV TO CLKpL^is 
 
 J. 219 a: On myths . . . 
 syKpLTsov .... and tone 
 of passage. 
 
 J. 230 D : svTavOd saTiv 
 6 fjbsyas kIvBvvos, 
 
 J. 410 C : TO BoKSLV 
 
 d'^pijaTovs slvai tols 
 TToXsaL tovs fiSTLovras 
 (l>(Xo<ro(j>lav, 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULAKY 
 
 77 
 
 Plato — continued. 
 
 Republic, 563 c : to jjlsv 
 yap Tcov drjpLcov .... 6 era) 
 sXevO spears pd scmv iv- 
 TavOa .... 'ylyvovral 
 ys St} Kol Xttitoi kol ovoi 
 Trdpv sksvOspcas .... 
 sWia/jLEVoi, Tropsvsa-Oac 
 
 Kara rds oBovs k.t.X. 
 
 Republic, 519 a. 
 
 Laws, 937 d. 
 
 Laws, 714 A. 
 
 Laws, 730 d. 
 
 J. 355 B : TO yap ttjs 
 
 TTOXSCOS TjOoS .... Sksi)' 
 
 dspov Xlav .... ouS' 
 d'jTO^\s-\^as oo-rj Kal /^s%/3^ 
 Tcou ovwv saTiV i\sv~ 
 O^pia , , , , at ifKaTslai 
 tS)V oScov ovk iirl tovtm 
 .... ')(^prja6aL Bs vir'' sXsv- 
 Osplas ol ovoL fiovXovTac 
 
 Tols (TTOals K.T.X, 
 
 J. 161 B : rots' KO/jL'\jrol9 
 
 WV TO '\jrV'^dptOV BpCfJLV /jlsu 
 vytS9 Bs K.T.X. 
 
 J. 91 A : Ta^ Bs olov 
 Krjpas .... £K(f)svycov ; 
 and 262 d: ov paBuov . . . . 
 sK<f)vyslv KTipas . . . .^ 
 
 J. 182 c : Tr]v Tov vov 
 BcavofjLTjv, cf. infra 258-59 
 where the passage from 
 the Laivs, including these 
 words, is quoted at length. 
 
 J. 316 c : 6pa .... fj,i] 
 
 irOTS OVTOC SVOS SiCTLV 
 dvTa^LOL TOVTOvl .... 
 
 cf. infra 353 d, where 
 Julian quotes the passage 
 from the Laws. 
 
 ^ Cf. too D. Hal. A. It.2.Bl irpoailvai 5e rivas kKdarri {rwy TroAtTc/iwj/) 
 Krjpas . . . and ib. 8. 61 : 6 5ai/j,wv , . , trepas ovk ivrvx^h KTjpos 
 
78 
 
 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 Plato — continued. 
 Laws, 917 B. 
 
 Laws, 676 a. 
 
 TheaetetuSf 175 d. 
 Theaetetus, 176 a. 
 
 Theaetetus, 161 a and 
 151 E. 
 
 TimaeuSy 41 a, b. 
 
 Timaeus, 42 d 
 
 T0V9 fisv 819 yrjv. 
 
 TimaeuSy 58 a. 
 
 sairsLps 
 
 J. 208 B : '^palvstv ov/c 
 svaycjs rrjv iTTcovufMiav roO 
 ^aaCkscds 'HXtou. 
 
 J. 148 B : Koi ravra 
 fiav Br} TavTTj, </)acrtV 
 
 J. 57 A. 
 
 J. 90 A : ra kukcl Bs 
 ovT^ iysvvTjosv k.t.\. 
 
 J. 206 c : v7rr)vs/iLa koX 
 TsparcoBr] .... siria-rrjfirjs 
 olov SiBcoXa* 
 
 J. 132 c. 
 
 J. 131 c. 
 
 Timaeus, 32 d : oXov 
 .... fwoz/ TsXsov i/c 
 TsXscov. 
 
 Timaeus, 77 b: ttuv yap 
 .... foJoz/ . , 
 \syoiTO. 
 
 Timaeus, 41 A : ttuvtss 
 oaoL TrspiTToXovaiv, 
 
 Timaeus, 32 b 
 TS Kal yrjs k.t.X, 
 Timaeus, 90 a. 
 
 J. 139 C : ^ Trdvra 
 
 €r(f)Lyysi. 
 
 J. 139 B : ^<Mov 6\ov 
 
 .... TSXSIOV SK flSpCOP 
 
 TsXsleov. 
 
 J. 193 B : 97 UXarcoviKT) 
 
 av Bo^a Efi-^vxa vTroXap,- 
 
 pdvovaa Kal ra (f)VTa. 
 
 J. 140 A : iroXXol Bs ol 
 Kar* ovpavov TrepiiroXovvTSS 
 .... Osol. 
 
 J. 143 c. 
 
 irvpos 
 
 J. 69 A : BaljjLova Osos 
 
 SKd(TT(D BeBcOfCS K.T.X, 
 
 ' Cobet points out {Mnemos. xi. p. 353) that though the phrase 
 had become proverbial it goes back to Plato ; cf. Plut. Demosih. c. 
 4 : Kal ravra fxiv ravrr), Kara IWdraiva, 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 79 
 
 Plato — continued. 
 
 Timaeus, 54 a. 
 
 Symposium f 174 B, d : 
 dfc\7]Tos rjKZLV aXKa .... 
 
 fC£KX7]JilSP09. 
 
 Phaedrus, 247 b. 
 
 Phaedrus, 267 a : ra ts 
 av (TfiLKpa fjLsyaXa koI ra 
 ^syaXa o-jxiKpa (j)alvaa6ai, 
 TTOiovai,. 
 
 Phaedrus, 251 c. 
 
 Epist. ii. 312 e : Trspl 
 TOP irdvTcov ^aaCkia iravr' 
 sari. 
 
 J. 216 B. 
 
 J. 201 b: Crates Jtto- 
 psvsTO sirl .... ia-Tias 
 
 CLkXtJTOS KSKKrjjJLSVOs} 
 
 J. 149 D : diT UK pas 
 dyjrlBos ovpavov. 
 J. 2 C.2 
 
 J. 206 D. 
 
 J. 132 c : 8m rbv irdvTcov 
 fiacnXsa, Trspl ov irdvra 
 
 Aristotle. 
 
 Ethics, iv. 2, 1 : Boksc J. 129 d : /cal roi (fMs) 
 
 yap Kal avrrj Trspl XP^' ^^ XsXrjOsv r) rcbv ^PVf^^' 
 
 fjLard Tis dpSTT] sli/ac .... tcov iXevOsptos BaTravrj 
 
 * Cobet's note on this passage {Mnemos. xi. p. 355) is as follows : 
 'Supple S-cAtjtos Ka\ KeK\7]ijLfvos. Thucydldes, i. 118 : Kal ahrhs i<p-n 
 ^v\\i]y\/€(rdai Koi TrapaKaXovjx^vos koL &K\r]TOS. Cf. 250 C : KaXovfiepos 
 re Kol &KX-r]Tos 6 6ehs ■Kapiarai.'' The latter passage, i.e. J. 250 c, is 
 certainly a reminiscence of Thucydides (see infra), but in 201 b 
 Julian has in mind rather the proverbial phrase, the original of 
 which is the Symposium passage above quoted. Cf. Hug's note on 
 Sympos. 174. Note too that it has special point in reference to the 
 Cynic Crates, since the Cynics frequently came to banquets as 
 &/CA77T01. Cf. Lucian, Sympos., Athenaeus, Deipnos. &c. 
 
 2 Julian may, of course, have had in mind Isocr. Paneg. 42 c. 
 In 234 D, ov Ti tV evQiov dWa r)]v iKirKriKrov (xaviav, he seems to be 
 echoing Phaedr. 265 a — the two kinds of /j-avia. 
 
 ' This is made probable by the fact that, 189 b, he quotes this 
 same letter, 314 c. 
 
80 
 
 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 Aristotle — continued. 
 
 KaOdirsp yap rovi/ofia avrb fMSTs^ovcrd tlvos dpsT7]9, 
 
 VTroarifiaLVSi, sv /xsysOsc 
 
 TTpsTTOvaa hairdvr} egtlv. 
 
 Thucydides. 
 I. 118. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius.^ 
 
 VI. 5. 
 
 VII. 25. 
 VI. 39. 
 
 Plutarch. 
 Amat. p. 759. 
 
 J. 250 c.^ 
 
 J. 198 D. 
 J. 245 A. 
 J. 238 A. 
 
 J. 225 c : rr]v avvro/xov 
 (j^acrlv, oSov koI avvrovov 
 (cf. however Diog. Laert.) 
 
 Vit. Anton. 28: /caOySv- J. 208 c : tov %a/)tv ovk 
 Tradsiv TO TroXvTsXsaraTOv, s(f)SL<Td/j.s6a rod ttoXv- 
 u)s^ KvTi^oiv sIttsv dvdXwfjia, rekovs dvdXco/jLaroSf irpos 
 TOV ')(^p6vov.^ hs Br} Kol icjidslpa/isv tov 
 
 '^povov. 
 
 Vit. Pericl. c. 38. J. 128 D. 
 
 The passages here compared niay be used to 
 modify the generahsations as to Julian's reading 
 
 * See note 40 supra. 
 
 2 Though Julian does not acknowledge his debt, it is probable 
 that many of his anecdotes were drawn from Diogenes Laertius, as 
 is indicated above. 
 
 ' Plutarch is the only authority for this saying of Antiphon, and 
 it is impossible to decide whether Julian is quoting from the original 
 or from Plutarch. The recurrence of the phrase TroAvreXes avaXwixa, 
 103 B, even raises the question whether Julian had either passage in 
 mind. 
 
IJNIVERSITT 
 
 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCi 
 
 and the reading of his contemporaries made by 
 Schwarz, pp. 649-653. Of the reminiscences from 
 Demosthenes Schwarz says (p. 651): *Alle sind der 
 Or, i. ii. Oder xviii. entlehnt. Dieses ist auffallig.' 
 JuHan, however, does not confine himself to those 
 Orations, but quotes from xx. xxi. and xxv. ; his 
 knowledge of Or. xviii. now appears much more ex- 
 tensive than the statistics of Schwarz would indicate. 
 In the case of Thucydides, only one direct re- 
 miniscence has been given ; it may be used to modify 
 the remarks of Schwarz (p. 650), and though I do 
 not think the parallel sufficiently certain to be included 
 in the above list, I am inclined to think that Julian 
 17 D sis T7]v avTLiraXov Bvva/jLtv . . . Karsarrjaav is 
 due to a recollection of Thuc. 4. 92 : to avTiiraXov 
 KOI iXsvOspov KaOio-raraij or of ih, iii. 9 : ovres . . . 
 avriiroKoi . . . hwdfiei, 
 
 A noteworthy feature of Julian's style is his Proverbs 
 frequent use of proverbs. They were supposed by 
 the rhetoricians to give an effect of jXvkvtvS'^ 
 Julian's aim was, probably, to give his compositions 
 a popular colouring which should appeal to the mass 
 of his hearers. For we find that, in his two vfjuvoty 
 which are more or less esoteric in character, there 
 occurs only one proverbial expression, and that, 
 possibly, a reminiscence of Plato.^ Julian uses the 
 
 • Aristid. ap. Sp. p. 499. 20. The list of Julian's proverbs given 
 by Hertlein (Index to Teubner edit.) is almost complete, and need 
 not be reproduced here. Add tSttov ou rpdirou (247 b) ; '2,apd6viov 
 ye\av ; 2«»ce\ai rpdireCai (203 a) ; ovk ifxhs 6 x6yos (299 C, 358 D, 387 b) ; 
 €jxol axf hirfyf^rovfj-hv orap (432 B ; cf. Bep. 663) ; k^ttos 'AXkIuov (401 a) ; 
 fiiKpa ix€yd\oi5 (71 B, 73 d) ; fiSrpvs irpos fidrpvy (225 b). 
 
 ■' i^Aot ypaUoju (161 B ; cf. Theaet. 176 b) ; other proverbs which 
 occur also in Plato, and may have been echoed from him by Julian, 
 
 G 
 
82 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY- 
 
 ordinary introductory formulae (cjyaai, to ttjs irapoiiMlas 
 MCTTTsp, TO) ovTc, &c.), but ho EQore often works in 
 proverbs without indicating their gnomic character. 
 
 JuHan was no declaimer. The extravagances of 
 metaphor, with which a purely epideictic orator 
 startled and held the attention of his audience, are, 
 therefore, absent from his sober style. ^ The follow- 
 ing collection represents his less common-place tropes 
 and similes: — sTTSKkvcrsv rS TrXovrw Trdvra, 8b; 
 
 VTTOTVCpO/jLSVOV TOV TToXs/JiOV KoX fJiiXkoVTOS aVappiTTL- 
 
 ^scrOai, 13 B ; SayfrLXov^ avTXrjasLsv sk ttIOov, 236 C ; 
 TTjv svs^lav Trspi^aWsadat,, 16 A; rod rpv(f)dv '^opTjyiaVj 
 16 b; 6 iToksfios o-uvspprjyvvTo, 24 c, 55 c; ^ icftsSpsvovra 
 rots Kaipols, 31 b ; tov sinovTa '^sLficbva (of invasion) 
 35 B ; 6 TTOLrjTTjs TOV BpdfjLaT09 (Maxeutius), 57 d ; 
 o TTJs /SaaiXslas viroKpiTrjs, 77 C ; diro tmv tsl')(0)v 
 havjid^ovv, 67 B ; ^ sa/nol pljBXwv, 191 C ; tov 
 Alyalov dva/jLETprjaat, 254 D ; dvOrjorat tj] TV')(r], 47 B ; 
 aTTOTpL'^acTOaL ttjs ddsoTTjTOS TYjV K7]\l8a, 180 B ; 
 aTTOcr/JLLXsvcov TCL prjixaTa ; aTroTopvevcov tovs TrspcoSov?, 
 77 A ; dOXn^Tcis dpsTTj^, 14 D ; rjVLas STrtTpSTrsLV tov 
 
 are : aif re 5u' ipxoiJ.4ya}, Ep. 74, Symp. 174 d, II. ii. 203, E.G. 
 (Spengel) iii. 152. 10 ; ov ttoAc/xoi/ ayyiKXus, 381 a {Phaedr. 242 b) ; 
 '/ttttoj/ els TreSiov {Theaet. 183 d) ; rhv KoXocpwi/a iitniQivai, 261 D [Theact. 
 153 et al.) ; /3dAA' els fiaKapiav, 333 B (Hipp. Maj. 293 a) ; irvp eirl irvp, 
 437 A {Laws, 666 a) ; 5Is ira'iSes ot ytpovres, 446 A (Laws, 646 a, &c.). 
 
 ' It is noteworthy that Julian never uses the gen. of exclamation 
 ■with S, except in the Letters. Here he is in strong contrast with 
 such writers as Maximus of Tyre, Libanius, Himerius, and even 
 Themistius. 
 
 2 Cf. Plut. ii. 322 B. 
 
 ' Cf. Aristid. xiii. 259, 276 ; Polemo, 13. 16 : irpSinos ivavfjLoixwfv 
 (K yr)s ; probably borrowed from Thuc. iv. 14 : ovdh &K\o ^ e/c 7^5 
 iyavfidxovy. 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 83 
 
 ^lov, 70 C; jXvKslav avifxaarOat Bpocrov, 241 A; apsrrjv 
 afjL7](Ta/jLSP0V9y 169 B ; aTrohvaaaOai irpos ho^asy 197 D ; 
 6 TTjs '\^v')(r}s BsaiMos ( = <TcoiJLa)y 198 B ; r/Btxr/jLara 
 irapa ttjs Mouq-t/^ sBpsy^aTO^ 207 B ; sK^aK'^^svaat 
 <j)psva9, 221 D ; to, dpprjTa dva/msTpslaOaL, 270 D ; 
 SK rrfs vTrocTTsyov <f)tko(70(f)La^f 262 D ; irr)<yas Ba/cpvcoVf 
 275 A ; ra iravra to3 rsTpa'^opBcp (tvvcoBmv, 315 C ; 
 avyKpoTslv (TV/jLTrocrLov, 308 D ; ^ ras^ iroXsc? anro- 
 BiSpacTKOvcra^ to \lav aKpai(^VES, 185 C ; dBa/jLavT^vijv 
 'F(ofjb7]Vj 326 c ; aKovri^sLV (J^ij/jltjv, 397 b. 
 
 TTjv vavv oiairsp pL^coOstaav,'^ 160 B; Hills surround Similes. 
 s, city KaOdirsp Biktvols, and a river olovsl fJbrj^avrjpbaTty 
 30 A ; he sprinkles in Platonic passages waTrsp dXcov 
 fj ')(^pvaov '^rjyfjLaros, 69 B ; iravros iTTiBparrofMeda 
 coairsp . , . ol \ij(yol . . . 69 C ; wairsp 6(ps.r)/jLa 
 cLTToBovs TTjv oXovpylBa, 77 C ; axnrsp saOrjTa TroLKLXrjv 
 rols ovofiaai aKiaypa^rjaavTas, 78 D ; wairsp is Xifjusva 
 Kara(f>svyovTS9 rrfv rovTov Bs^lav, 97 B ; The sun 
 turns ooaTTSp irspl rrjv vvaaav, 156 A ; Cynicism like 
 Silenus statuary, 187 a (Plat. Symp.) ; wairsp sk 
 Xsifjbcovos Bpsylrdfjisvos rd dvdrj (of philosophy), 244 B ; 
 A sophist pours out his words coairsp ol Trorafiol rots 
 ttsBlols £ira<j)idaLV rd psufjuara, 373 D ; fxrjrspa irpo 
 wpas dvapTTaa-Orjvai KaOdirsp BaBa XafjuirpSss 'qjJLjjbsvqv, 
 412 B ; wairsp ol TreXeuiBss — a-oPrjdsls dvairTTjvaiy 
 204 c. 
 
 Phrases apparently peculiar to Julian are the 
 following : — Bpdv ydpi^ov, 110 d ; yaXrjvrjs dxpi^ovs, 
 25 B, 98 A ; TO TrsTrXTjdvcrfzivov rrjs ^corjs, 222 a ; cf. 
 142 B ; TTs^VKS rd dsla . . . irXTjOvvsaOai Bed to 
 
 ' Cf. (TvyKporeTu tr uvSetTr voi', Plut. 
 2 Od. 13. 163. 
 
 g2 
 
84 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 TTZpLOV . . . TTIS ^(jOTjS ', Xl/JLOV oXoOJTTjpa /SpOTSLOV, 
 
 370 A (evidently a quotation, though I have been 
 unable to find it elsewhere). 
 
 It seems astonishing that, with all their close study 
 of classic models, the writers of reminiscence Greek 
 should so often admit expressions and constructions 
 which betray either a misunderstanding of their 
 authors, or an inability to keep clear of the corrupted 
 usage of the spoken language of their day. The 
 following illustrate Julian's failings in this respect : — 
 ovSs ypv /jlsteBcoksv {ttjs irarpcpas ova-las), ^1^ B. This 
 is against the classical limitation of this phrase to 
 verbs of speaking. Bco/Jbdriov = house, 259 b, 260 b, 
 263 A. The classical usage confined this word to the 
 part of the house where one sleeps.^ 
 
 The following are the special points in Julian's 
 syntax which seem worthy of notice : 
 
 Non-classical or rare Constructions. 
 
 Optatives. Julian combines with the normal classical use of 
 the optative certain non-classical constructions which 
 were brought in by the earlier Atticists through a 
 misunderstanding of the Attic usage, and had kept 
 their place in the literary language.^ Such are : 
 
 (1) Optative in prot. with fut. ind. in apodosis,^ 
 28 A, 40 c, 5 D, 88 d, 115 d, 240 a, 237 a, 140 c, 
 
 • Themistius, 290 d, uses ^ufidnov oihis, lecture theatre. 
 
 2 See Scbmid, Atticismus, i. p. 97. These constructions of the 
 optative are common in Dio, Lucian, &c. It will be seen from a 
 comparison of Schmid's statistics with those given above that Julian 
 uses them comparatively rarely. 
 
 » G. M. T. § 499. 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 85 
 
 182 A, 181 D, 250 c, 290 b, 123 b, 155 b, 157 d, 172 d, 
 
 183 A, 185 b, 431, B. Ep. 78, p. 605. 
 
 (2) Opt. in protasis and pres. ind. in apodosis,^ 
 23 A, 134 c. 
 
 (3) Opt. in final clauses, &c., following a primary 
 tense.^ 189 c, vTrovpysl 009 av hvvairo. 236 B, d(f)L7}fiL 
 'iva fiT) TTpoaKpovaaLfMi. 270 A, ffouXofxai aTrayyslXai, 
 oirws ysvoLTO yvcopLfia, 
 
 (4) Extended Deliberatives,^ 44 c, ovfc scttlv otov 
 
 Bs6fjL£V09 T(p KSKTTJfjLEVW (fiOoVrjaSLEV, 94 A, OVK S^O)V 6 TL 
 
 fjLS/jL(f)OiTO, 178 C, 6 TL (Tv/jL^s^rjKSU ovBels oaTis OV 
 (^Tjaeisv* 199 B, riv <yap ovBsv 66 ev avra irpiairo. 
 
 Julian shows no sense of a distinction between o v Nega. 
 and ft ^, and there seems to be no method in his use "^^^* 
 of them. The disproportionate use of yu.^ common to 
 the writers of late Greek cannot be accounted for by 
 the desire to avoid hiatus, for while Julian writes 
 on firj regularly for ort ov, he not infrequently 
 uses jjLT] when there is no hiatus to avoid. It may be 
 noted that while we find in Julian instances of yu,^ in 
 every case where ou, according to classical usage, 
 would be correct, he does not show the same laxity 
 with regard to o u. He never, for instance, writes o v 
 in the protasis of a conditional sentence, though this 
 was not at all unusual with the Atticists.'* 
 
 The use of irapa with the genitive as the equiva- Prepos: 
 
 ' G. M. r. §§ 500-1. 
 
 2 G. M. T. II 322-3. 
 
 3 See Professor Hale in Transactions of Am. Arch. Ass. for 1893, 
 G. M. T. § 242. 
 
 * Schmid, Att. ii. p. 62, for examples from Aristides. 
 
86 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULAEY 
 
 lent of viro of the agent is very frequent with all 
 kinds of verhs. It was common with all the later 
 writers (Schmid, Att. ii. p. 399, for the usage of Dio 
 and Lueian). Julian furnishes instances on almost 
 every page, virsp = siri, 24 c. virsp = irspi, 92 d. 
 sTSTpaTTTo 7rpo9, for the usual dat. or sis or ettI, 27 d. 
 
 Non-classical or rare constructions after verhs, — 
 <f>6r)aSTat Bca^ijvai, 23 D, vojjll^co on, 192 c,^ ol/xat 
 on, 235 D. In phrases constructed with Zscd and the 
 infinitive Julian sometimes "omits oXljov (or fjuKpov), 
 e.g. 230 a, 242 d, 341 d. Haupt in Hermes iv. 30, on a 
 similar omission in Od. a. 483, Alciphr. Ep. 3, 5, Paus. 
 4, 17, 8, proves that the construction though rare is 
 not incorrect. 
 
 The direct form of the interrogative adverb in an 
 indirect question occurs : 363 b, ovk so-tl ttoOsv ; 354 d, 
 01) yap s'^cD TTcds ', 6 c, (iTTopelv ttoOev. On the other 
 hand Julian sometimes uses the indirect where one 
 would expect the direct form. 164 c, av6' orov — ovx^' 
 B(o(To/jLsv ; Ep. 59, p. 576, av6^ orov toIs ^ayat, 7ro\sfiscs ; 
 cf. too fragg. contra Christ. 276 e, 238 a, 314 c, 
 135 B. Julian uses the direct and indirect forms to- 
 gether, 153 B, tL STL aoL Xsyco, ttms Trpovvoiqas ottcos Be 
 sBcoKS' 
 
 The demonstrative use of the article in a clause in- 
 troduced by 09, 6(709, olo9, is frequent in Julian, e.g. 
 30 A, Tcbv odOi TToXac ysyovacTLv. 70 D, ovBsva XsXrjOs 
 
 TWV OCrOL . . . p,STa')(^£Lpi^OVTaL. 103 C, T0L9 VTTEp 0}V 
 
 > Once in Dio, ii. 67. 21. Gildersleeve, A. J. P. ix. p. 101, has 
 pointed out that on and us occur in classical Greek after uofiiCca and 
 ol/jLaL ' under circumstances of especial temptation.' He quotes 
 olixai TovTo '6ti, pi. Protag. 345 d ; vo/j-ia-avrcs on, Xen. Hell. 5. 6. 42. 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 87 
 
 ^syovsv. 169 c, Tols oaob s7rrr]fjLSv ; cf. 248 c, B48 B. 
 Cobet would emend 110 a to read syKco/jLcov rrjs virsp 
 ris 6 \6yos ; and Naber, Mnemos. xi. p. 406, would 
 insert t6u before ^ in 104 a, and would read tols for 
 TovTOis, 125 B, 125 c, 239 b, and supply toIs before 
 Mv, 346 c. These changes hardly seem to be called 
 for. The construction was frequent in Plato, cf. 
 Kiihner, ii. p. 459, 2nd edit. ; and for its use in 
 late Greek, Schmid, Att. ii. 46, iii. 63. 
 
 SoKslu fioi 308 B, Kara as cfxivcu ^ 192 C, ^vvsXovtl Infinitive 
 ■» « -, p. ,N rv ^ ctrr Absolute. 
 
 SLTretv ly C, fjbiKpov osiv z7 D. 
 
 In the employment of illustrations drawn from Latinism 
 Eoman history, and of Latin names, Julian followed, 
 as we have seen {chap. I.), the lax usage of the later 
 school of Sophists. But he was enough of a purist to 
 keep his vocabulary free from Latinisms, at least in 
 the case of his formal writings. Only once in these, 
 in the Misopogon,^ do^ he use a Latin word, and it 
 is with an apology. In the Letters, however, he 
 abandons this etiquette to some extent, Latinisms 
 are found in the rescripts (397 a ^ps^ia and 
 (TKpiviOLs). But from a rescript only it would not be 
 fair to judge, for an emperor is not responsible 
 for the vocabulary of what is only indirectly his. 
 Latinisms occur in his private Letters, e.g. 378 b 
 vordpLos] 424 d Trpt/Sdrois; 430 c feo-T7;s'=sextarius ; 
 376 a AsKs/jb/Sptcov KaXavSojv. 
 
 olfiai. — A favourite device of the Atticists to give ATiicrsus. 
 ^^0* ^ to their compositions, i.e. to bring out the per- 
 
 • Cf. lamblich. ap. Stob. Florileg. (Meineke) vol. i. p. 80, koL 
 <rv\Kr}&Sr]u (pdvai. 
 
 '^ 369 B : fMvpiovs, ovs iirix^P'^ou iffri Xoiirhv buofxa^eiv [xo^iovs. 
 
 ' Hermog. De Id. p. 293. 30 ; iav yap e^Trrjy, ovk ^v olfiat Trepas, 
 
88 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 sonality of the writer, was the use of the parenthetic 
 olfiaL. It was made to express irony, modesty, con- 
 viction, and the Hke. JuHan gives to oljjLai every 
 shade of meaning and outdoes the earlier Atticists in 
 the frequency with which he employs it.^ 
 
 Collective singular with plural verb, 
 19 a fjiolpa . . . 7rpoo-6s/j.£vot ; 22 d rofjusv Xvaavres, 
 
 TO Bs TO\fl(OVTS9 ', 24 A TaVTa 6pCOVT£9 TO (JTpOLTSVfJLa ) 
 
 29 A cLKfjLyTas rjjss TO cTTpaTEVfia ; 128 C Sr/flOS 
 SisXayx^avov. Schmid, Ait. iii. p. 93, gives instances 
 from Thucydides and Aristotle, but the construction 
 was rare in the classical period. 
 
 arra (7 times), 263, 183, 189, 206 c d, 348 ; fiwv 
 (twice) 311, 334 ; tcaTa (4 times), 122, 147, 310, 269 ; 
 ^tjTTov (5 times), 68, 245, 250, 341, 355 ; Toijapovv 
 occurs in fifth place 318 d. {(oairep follows the word 
 it qualifies, 327 c.)' 
 
 Favourite phrases with Julian are the following : — 
 hi daSrjTTOToijv alTias, 18 C, 25 C, 103 a ; if eTriTay- 
 fiaTos, 21 c, 39 b, 266 b ; iTrLXslyjrsi fie 6 xpovos, 28 a, 
 
 Koi rh. €|ijy, ^Qos iroz€?s. Cf. Schmid, Att. i. p. 217 ; Aristid. ii. 415 : 
 oT5o Se Kot AoKdJVJKos rivas opx^c^reis Koi rpayinds 7' kripas ifx/xeXilas 
 olfiai Ka\oviJ.4uas. 
 
 ' Schmid, loc. cit., shows that in 280 Teubner pages Dio C. uses 
 it 83, and Lucian in 276 pages 57, times ; in 270 Teubner pages of 
 Julian it occurs 130 times. 
 
 2 Most of the above are conscious Atticisms, such as Lucian 
 ridicules, Lexvphanes, 21, R.P. c. 16. His satirical advice to the 
 would-be orator to learn fifteen or twenty Attic words and sprinkle 
 them into his speeches was not pointed at such Atticists as, e.g., 
 Aristides, who aimed at scientific correctness in their iK\oy}) 
 ovofidroiv, but rather at men like Polemo, who tried by such means 
 to give an effect of learning to a style which by reason of its lack 
 of flow and grace, and by its extravagances of thought and language, 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 89 
 
 41 B, 34 B ; iv ovBs 6\ol9 fjurjai, 42 D, 8 B, 51 c, 71 c, 259 D, 
 280 A ; XsLirsraL \olit6v, 48 a, 173 D ; dirioiv (px^'^^f 
 66 D, 230 c, 359 a (this was an Atticism, see Schmid) 
 irvl^ovs pco/J^V} 23 B, 26 a ; ovk alricoTaTov ysvsadaCj 
 18 D, 353 B ; dvafidxscrOaL ra TrraLa/juara, 17 D, 
 24 D ; OVK sl9 /jLUKpav, 13 B ; ek Trspiovaias, 27 a, 
 342 c. 
 
 It will be noted that in several cases these phrases 
 recur within a few lines. This feature of Julian's 
 somewhat careless style has been pointed out earlier 
 in the chapter. Other phrases which are repeated 
 within a few lines are Tfkrjv a\X — ttXtjv dXX\ 146 b ; 
 svhrjXov ore — svBrjXov on, 146 D, 147 A ; Karsvorfaafjusv, 
 152 B c ; v(f) r]ysix6(Ti Tols Oeoh^ 170 A B ; irpos hia- 
 fjLovijv, 183 c. 
 
 Tvxov, TSC09, and Xolttov were favourite words 
 with Julian. 
 
 Schmid, Att. ii. p. 159, regards the frequent use 
 of the adverbial tvxov, by the writers of late Greek, 
 as an Atticism, cf. Att. i. p. 137 for the usage in Dio. 
 Aristides avoids it. It occurs very often in Julian, 
 who twice has the tautological tvxov Xo-ws (378 d, 
 446 a) which is to be found in Lucian and Strabo. 
 
 TECDs was also much in vogue with late Greek 
 writers. In Lucian it always means * until now,' in 
 Dio * in the meanwhile ' and ' until then ' (see Schmid 
 sub voc), Julian has it meaning 'lately,' e.g. 231 b. 
 
 was far removed from classic models. Attic particles, such as those 
 given above, are not inappropriate to the style of Lucian, Dio, 
 Libanius, Themistius, and Julian. Themistius, like Lucian, 
 ridicules the unskilful use of archaic and Attic words, 253 c, d : 5 
 hiycDU iKe'ivos . , . eu ixd\a avaKvKXiieras rh h^irovBfv Kol rh K&ireiTa Kal 
 TO) AiocrKSpw, olx^ffiTai KaTayeAacras aov irivv t^s aixaOias . . . 
 
90 JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 
 
 and with the forces mentioned above. He uses it 
 about a dozen times, in this resembhng Dio. 
 
 XotTToV. Xoiirov also occurs about half a dozen times in 
 
 Julian. Its use was frequent after Polybius (cf. 
 Schmid, iii. 134, with references there given to 
 Dio, &c.). Its precise force in Julian is not always 
 clear, e.g. 369 b, ov9 £iri')(C)opi6v saTi Xoiirov ovofid^sLv 
 /jLoSiov9. Elsewhere it means ' by this time ' (24 c et al.)y 
 * for the future,' &c. 
 
 VOCA.BU- Specially Neoplatonic words are : a'7r\ov(rTaT09, 
 
 Osovpyos, airoTT-Xrjpworis, a'yaOosp'yos^ aei'ysvscrla^ 
 aiToirXripwTrjS, air oirXt] poor lkos, kvosLhrjSy svo£lSco9, 
 7rspLfC(jafjii09, avOviroaTaros, virsp'jrXrjprjs, TsXeaiovpyo^, 
 
 Words apparently first used by Julian or by him only 
 are: — ^svirio-Tia, vsoXsktos (Theodoret, &c.), ] Kara- 
 jiovaoo), ^Ospihiov (not in Stephanus), ^avyicT7]aelhiov, 
 irarpo^oyXos (Act. Martyr.), nrapahsKTOs (CyrilL), 
 ^iraihapihLov (condemned as an impossible form by 
 Cobeta<i^oc.), ^ E(j>v'jrv(OTT(o, "fi^avayswdofiat^^Xvaao- 
 fiavla, kiTTCLKTiS (Proclus), ] d-^vx^^yoiyrjTOdS^ diro- 
 afiiXsvco (metaph.) (Themist., Synes.) , sKcpavacs (Euseb. 
 &c.), ^^o)7rvpL9, ^ pofKpatov (for poficfyaLa), dirpay- 
 fjuaTsvTcos (Synes., Basil), avrrtXa (Suidas), ^irrriaLfioSf 
 7rapi7r7roy=tracehorse, diroTaicTio-TrjS. 
 loNisMs. lonisms are rare in Julian; the most noteworthy 
 
 are d/iaprds, 82, 54, 75 ; ysvsLyrrjv, 131. 
 
 Non-classical forms or uses of verbs. — fiy sao (Doric ; 
 cf. Plut. Apophth. Lac. 241), 232 ; ^lafxapTrjcrsiv, 3 A ; 
 
 t = ait. \€y. 
 
JULIAN'S STYLE AND VOCABULARY 91 
 
 avlirrajjiaL 154 (Lucian, /SoZoec. 574) ;^ fMvr}crT6vo/j.ac = 
 woo (for /jLvrjaTsvco) 110 (Luc. Soloec. 9 condemns the 
 use of the middle ; it occurs, however, twice in his 
 own works, Merc, Cond. 23 ; Tox, 87), ^alvo^aL= 
 seem good, 281. 
 
 ' K. P. Schuize, Neiie Phil. JaJirh. 1887, p. 226, affirms that 
 iirrdu.7)v is poetic and is used in prose only by Plato; (once by 
 Xenophon). 
 
93 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 I. The Letters 
 
 The Letters publislied by Hertlein under Julian's name 
 may be roughly divided into five classes : — 
 
 1. Those that even conservative editors — e.g. Hertlein 
 — reject. They are 1, 24, 66, 72, 75. The spuriousness 
 of this class may be assumed. 
 
 2. The Letters to lamblichus— 34, 40, 41, 53, 60, 61. 
 
 3. Those suspected by Schwarz and Cumont. 
 
 4. Those suspected by Cumont only. 
 
 5. The rescripts. These are only indirectly Julian's.* 
 I propose to consider briefly certain arguments which have 
 been used to prove the spuriousness of classes 2, 3, and 4. 
 
 The testimony of Eunapius to the death of lamblichus 
 and Sopater under Constantine has been the natural 
 starting-point of the attack on the authenticity of the 
 letters to lamblichus. He tells us that Sopater, the pupil 
 of lamblichus, went to the court of Constantine after the 
 death of his master, there fell into disfavour, and was 
 executed by Constantine's orders.^ lamblichus cannot, 
 therefore, have been alive later than 336 a.d. Julian was 
 
 ' For the Latinisms in these letters see supra, chap. iii. Cumont 
 {Les Lettres de Julien, Gand, 1889, p. 21, note 3) also points out 
 certain expressions in them, e.g. ra rris r^fiepdrrtTos ypdfxixaTa (399 a) 
 and rjufTcpa <pi\avdpuTri(f (398 b), which Julian could hardly have 
 written. 
 
 ' Eunap. Vit. Aed. p.-Sl, Boiss. 
 
94 THE LETTERS 
 
 born in 331 ; no one has been found to maintain that, 
 granted these dates, a correspondence such as these Letters 
 represent could have been carried on. Naber ^ alone 
 among modern critics has cut the knot ; he rejects the 
 evidence of Eunapius, and endeavours by a series of con- 
 jectural dates to place the death of lamblichus as late as 
 361 A.D. His only authority for thus adding thirty years 
 to the philosopher's life is the existence of these letters. 
 Naber does not account for the internal evidence of facts 
 irreconcilable with history,^ or for the position of the 
 already aged Aedesius and Maximus of Ephesus as heads 
 of the Neoplatonic school at the time when Julian was 
 first attracted to its doctrines, 351-355 a.d.^ The more 
 searching criticisms of Cumont and of Schwarz "^ have, 
 however, placed the spuriousness of the six letters to 
 lamblichus beyond question, and it will be taken for 
 granted in the further discussion of the Letters. 
 
 It is in connection with Sopater's death that Eunapius 
 records the death of lamblichus under Constantine. If we 
 accept his evidence for one we must accept it for both. 
 Yet in a genuine letter of Julian (Ejp, 27, 401 b), he speaks 
 
 ' Mnemosyne, N.S. vol. xi. p. 388 (1883). It is noteworthy that 
 Cobet in the same number assumes that Julian wrote these letters ; 
 see p. 352. 
 
 2 For which see Cumont, op. cit. p. 6. The objection raised to 
 rpo(p4ws TU3V ifxavTov -Kai^iaiv {Epp. 40 and 67) does not seem to have 
 much force. Julian may well be referring, Sophistico more, to his 
 own writings ; cf . Julian, 50 a : o irarrip iKiivoov rwv \6ycau. Synes. 
 Ep, i. : ira7das iyu xSyovs ^yevvr](r6.ixr]v. Psellus, Ep, 6, p. 176, Boiss. : 
 6760 Se Tct f/Lia y^vviifiaTa, tovs x6yovs (pT]fj.i k.t.A. ; and the celebrated 
 passage in Plato, Symp. 209 d, e. See too Gildersleeve, Essays, 
 p. 376. 
 
 * Eunap. Vit. Aed. 19 : eKSexerai 5e tt]v 'lafx^Kixov SiaTpiPrju Kal 
 ofuXiav els robs Iraipous AiSeVios ; cf. Liban. vol. i. p. 408 E., and 
 Eunap. Vit. Max. p. 474. 
 
 * De vita etscriptis Juliani, Bonn, 1888; and ' Julianstudien ' in 
 Philologus, 51. 1892. 
 
THE LETTERS 96 
 
 of meeting at Batnai, when en route for Persia, a certain 
 ^€1/09, 6cf>0el<s fJikv cipn, cfuXov/xevos Se vtt' ifxov TrdXai, ' Ia/jt/3At^o v 
 
 TOV OeLOTOLTOV TO Op€jXfJia, ^WTTttTpO?, 6 TOVTOV KrjS€(TTr]<S i^ OCTOV. 
 
 i/jLol yap TO fxrj TtavTa iKCtvwv twv avSpojv dyaTrav dSiKrjiJLdTOiV 
 0UC6V ovTO) cf>av\6TaTOV ctvat 8o/c€t. 
 
 1 shall proceed to discuss certain assumptions which 
 have been made in regard to this passage. It presented 
 obvious difficulties to Cumont and Schwarz, for though, by 
 its apparent contradiction of two passages in the letters 
 to lamblichus,^ it furnishes another argument against 
 their authenticity, the disagreement with Eunapius is 
 direct, if by this Sopater is meant the disciple of the 
 famous lamblic.hus. Schwarz {De vita et scrijytis I. 
 pp. 24-25) interpreted 'lafx^Xcxov . . . to Opefjifxa ^wTrarpos as 
 referring to this Sopater and to a meeting between him 
 and the writer. He accordingly rejects the passage as an 
 interpolation in an otherwise genuine letter, and in sup- 
 port of this view points out a construction in line 19 which 
 is not found in Julian's authenticated writings.^ Cumont 
 
 ' The last words of both of the sentences are corrupt, and the 
 first corruption has not, so far, been satisfactorily emended ; it does 
 not, however, affect the important words in the passage, as Schwarz 
 points out {Philologus, 51. p. 630) : Verderbt und unverstandlich ist 
 sie aber erst, nachdem mit gut verstiindlichen Worten gesagt worden 
 ist, dass Julian Sopater, den Zogling des hochgottlichen lamblich, 
 gesehen habe. Eeiske suggests for 15-16 aSiKri/ndTaju ovSsvhs 7]ttov 
 Twv (pavAoTOLTOiV ehai SoKet; Naber ov rh (pavX6Tarov k.t.X. I would 
 read, on the strength of Or. iii. 102 b, dS/zcry^aTcoi/ oh^^vhs tSjv &A\wu 
 <pavX6Tepov, which seems less clumsy than Eeiske's reading and 
 obviates Naber's omission of ovdeu, besides having the advantage of a 
 closer resemblance to the passage in Or. iii. 
 
 2 Cf. &PTI (xkv 6(pe€Ls, 401 B (written in 363), with 439 c : e>6 re 
 KoX rhv kralpov 'Xdnarpoy fls rrjy &paKr]v iXiTeu7]i^ox^vai irpoffnai^cis, and 
 417 D : fieTCL ravra eTrpeVjSeucrej/ ws fjixas 6 KaXhs ^Mirarpos ; both of 
 which passages must have been written much earlier than Ep. 27. 
 
 ' Op. cit. p. 24 n., K ; versus 9-21 ab interpolatore epistulae 27 
 inserti sunt, quod probat firmissime oia et/co's in v. 19 adhibitum . . . 
 nam Julianus semper (viciens ter) i;s u habet. The arguments 
 
96 THE LETTEES 
 
 disapproves of this rather arbitrary method, and is content 
 to ignore the passage on the ground of its corruption.^ 
 Zeller, on the other hand, appears to take a wholly dif- 
 ferent view of the words under discussion : ' Dagegen kann 
 Ep. 27 (an Libanius) acht sein,' he says,^ *wo auch, 
 S. 401 B, Sopater, der Zogling des ^etoraros 'la/^^Atxos, 
 nicht mehr ah lebend behandelt wird 1 ' But the difficulty 
 of accounting for an interview in 863 between Julian and 
 a Neoplatonist named Sopater, whose associations with 
 lamblichus endeared him to the Emperor, would, at any 
 rate, have been diminished for Cumont and Schwarz if 
 they had taken into account the existence at that time of 
 a younger Sopater, son and namesake of the deceased 
 disciple of lamblichus. That there was such a son is 
 proved by the pseudo-Julianic Letter 40. The author, 
 whoever he may be, writes to lamblichus and to rbv Upov 
 SwTrarpov tov cKctVov TratSa ; by ckciVov is meant the elder 
 Sopater, who had been mentioned a few lines above (417 d). 
 And Libanius,^ addressing one Sopater in Ep. 1448, in a 
 tone of patronage, such as the difference in their ages for- 
 bids one to suppose he would have used towards the elder 
 Sopater, tells him that he gave one of his (Sopater's) 
 letters to a friend to read that he might see ws Setj/os 
 cTrta-reAAciv €L7]<i. eTratvowrt Sc, yrj Oav/xd(rrj<;, effurjv, ei Tvaripa 
 
 deduced by Schwarz in this dissertation from the use of particles, 
 prepositions, &c., do not appear to me to prove anything of them- 
 selves ; as Cumont, p. 9, points out, by such reasoning one might " 
 prove the spuriousness of the best authenticated classic. 
 
 1 P. 9, note. 
 
 ' Phil, der Griech. vol. v. p. 680, note. Unless Zeller was inter- 
 preting some reading not mentioned by Hertlein, it is not easy to see 
 how he derived an allusion to Sopater'' s death from the text ; is it 
 because of iKdvwv ruv av^pSiv 7 
 
 2 Libanius in E2Jp. 542, 577, and 1298 may well be addressing 
 the elder Sopater, who died when the Sophist was about twenty-two 
 years of age. Their tone is what one would expect from a younger 
 lo an older man. 
 
THE LETTERS 97 
 
 fjLLfjLe^TaL. There is, on the other hand, no evidence 
 against the theory that the Sopater of Ej). 27 is this 
 younger Sopater with whom Zeller, Schwarz, and Cumont 
 have not reckoned, while its acceptance would remove the 
 necessity of either changing the text with Cumont or re- 
 jecting it with Schwarz, and so would furnish another 
 piece of negative evidence against the authenticity of the 
 six letters to lamblichus.' 
 
 Assuming that we may safely reject those six letters, I 
 proceed to consider classes 3 and 4, and their treatment by 
 M. Cumont. Cumont made a real advance in the discus- 
 sion with his theory that the lamblichus letters were 
 written by one man, the Sophist Julian of Caesarea,^ for 
 whose biography we rely on the anecdotes of Eunapius and 
 the short notices of Suidas and Photius.^ There are cer- 
 tain parallels of language and thought in these six letters 
 which seem to favour the view that they had a common 
 author.^ 
 
 ' If the Sopater of Ep. 27 were identified, as is suggested above, 
 with the son of the philosopher put to death by Constantine, another 
 reservation, besides those indicated by Cumont (p. 4), would have to 
 be made to Zeller's arguments against the now generally abandoned — 
 and rightly abandoned— theory that these letters were written by the 
 Emperor to the younger lamblichus. Der Neffe wird aber doch 
 wohl nicht gleichfalls einen Sopater in demselben Verhaltniss bei 
 sich gehabt haben wie der Oheim, says Zelier, with reference to the 
 mention of a Sopater in the pseudo-Julianic letters (e.g. Ei?. 53, 
 539 c). We cannot assert that this was impossible if we recognise 
 the existence of Sopater II. who could conceivably have played such 
 a part. Naber {Mnemosyne, xi. pp. 390 and 342) refers to this 
 second Sopater, but his theory of the genuineness of the Letters 
 and of the falsity of Eunapius' evidence prevents his seeing any 
 significance in the fact of his existence for this passage ia 
 E2}. 27. 
 
 '■' Cumont, op. cit. p. 29. 
 
 " Suidas, i. p. 1007, Bernh. ; Phot. Cod. 190, p. 98, r.. 
 
 * Cumont, p. 9, notes 3, 4. 
 
 n 
 
98 THE LETTEES 
 
 But it could not escape Cumont that if the same test 
 were applied to several other letters of Julian, hitherto 
 unquestioned, they would be found to furnish striking 
 parallels with the letters to lamblichus. He took the step 
 to which his method logically led him, and decided that 
 all the letters that contain such parallels are by this one 
 author, the Sophist Juhan.^ There can be no doubt that here 
 his theory carried him away. Some of these eighteen 
 letters are certainly not written by the Emperor, as editors 
 have seen.2 But an argument for identity of authorship 
 based on parallel passages is especially unsafe when one is 
 dealing with the writers of an age of Sophistical habits of 
 thought and expression. One who had traced Sophistic 
 commonplaces through Julian, Themistius, Libanius, and 
 Himerius, would hardly have laid much stress on such 
 coincidences as are quoted by Cumont,^ to prove the 
 identity of authorship of Epp, 16, 40, and 61. The paral- 
 lels quoted are : — 
 
 Ep. 16, p. 495, 2 : 6 /x€v Ep, iO'.Av/x^ . . . *HXtov 
 
 fxv6os ■jTotet Tov aerov cTrciSav rtuv aKTcVwv KaOaTrep qI tCjv 
 TO, yvqa-ia Toiv Kvyj/xdriov aerwv yvyaiOL KaTaOappuiaiv, 
 /SaaavL^r}' . - rats r/Xtov Trpoa- 
 ay€LV aKTlaiv. 
 
 I)ut the figure was not peculiar to one writer in the fourth 
 century, for cf. Themistius, 240 c, d, /cat rot o-v^va yi fxov 
 a7re7r€t/3(o KaBairep ot deTOt twv v^orroiv (Julian, Ep. 16 
 v€orrov [jS"^. 40] v€0TT6v<i quoted by Cumont) et Svvarat 
 p.01 (TTeyeLV to. ofifiaTa kol avix^crBai T-qv avyrjv t^s aX-q$€La<s^ 
 KoX TroXXaKt? aTreTre/ATTCS cA-TTtSos ye/xtVas dya^^9 koX iy€ydvv(TO 
 . . . . ort o-ot yvrja-LOVS ([Ep. 40] yvi^a-iOL Ep. 16 ra 
 
 » I.e. Epp. 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, 28, 32, 34, 40, 41, 53, 54, 57, 60, 
 61, 67, 73. 
 
 ■' E.g. 24, 34, 40, 41, 53, 60, 61. 
 3 Cumont, p. 18. 
 
THE LETTEES 99 
 
 yvrjcTLa) ^Xey^ov tols yova^ Trpos tov tjXlov ov crKapSa/>ivTr(oi^ 
 
 K.T.X. Another parallel from the same letter actually 
 rests on a mistranslation by M. Cumont of one of the 
 passages quoted by him (p. 88). For the passage from 
 [£'j9. 61] p. 582. 10 : Kadd-n-ep aya6w Trarpl Trats yv^o-ios ck 
 
 TToXi/XOV TLV6<S rj StaTTOVTtOV kAvSwVOS aV€\7rtVTa>9 6(fiO€LS 
 
 bears no relation whatever to the passage quoted as its 
 parallel from Ep. 16, I. 10-16 : TroTa/xw kXvo-ov ws vo^ovs . . . 
 ocra^' av iTTLyvio KaOapov (TTripfJiaTOSTfj fJLrjrpl Tp^fxova-y €t? 
 X^tpas . . . 8t8a)crtv, which refers to the dipping of the 
 infants of the Celts in a certain river to test their legiti- 
 macy. But even granting that there is a certain similarity 
 between the figure of a father welcoming his son home 
 from war or a sea voyage and a mother receiving back her 
 infant from the ordeal by water, the argument turns out 
 to be double-edged for M. Cumont, for the latter figure 
 occurs in one of Julian's Orations, ii. p. 81. It is hardly 
 conceivable that M. Cumont confined his attention to the 
 Letters only in dealing with the question of Julian's style, 
 but it is remarkable that he should not have observed the 
 real parallelism between Ej:). 16, whose genuineness he 
 attacks, and the following : — tolovtov o rov<s Traripas rjfuv 
 aKpLJSCjq KaT€p€L KOL oLTTeXiy^eL TOV TOKOV yvrjcTLOv ; virapx^iv 8c 
 yj>a.(ri KOL KeA-Tots irorapov dSe/cao-rov (cf. Ep, 16, dSeKacrTOv 
 fiapTvpiav of the river), kplttjv Tuiv eyyoi/wv koI ov rruBovcTLV 
 avTov ovT€ at fxrjrcpes oSvpofievai, c-vyKokvimiv avTo. kol 
 dTTOKpvTrruv ttjv a/xapraSa, oure ot Trare/jes vTrlp riov yajx^TUiv 
 KoX Twv lyyovoiv iirl rrj /cptcret Sct/xatVoi/res, drpe/ciyg 8e ecrrt kol 
 di/^euSTjs KpLTy]<; (Julian, p. 81). 
 
 There is more point in the citation of ovk ijxos t'Sio? dWd 
 TToKaiuiv dvSpu)v 6 Aoyo9, £^j9j9. 19, 24, and 54 (Cumont, 
 pp. 15-16) ; for though the expression was a proverbial 
 one (see Nauck, Trag. Fragg. p. 512, and Julian, 299 c, 
 358 d), yet the use in the three letters quoted of tStos and 
 of TraAatojv dvSpojv, which seems to be confined to these 
 passages, favours the notion of a common author (cf. 
 
100 THE LETTERS 
 
 Schwarz, Philolog7is, p. 638, n. 7). Cumont, however, 
 has not pointed out this pecuharity, and might well have 
 made a reservation here, such as he made in the case of 
 (f>€p€Lv . . . ycvvatw? (p. 28, n. 4). In the more striking passages 
 I have tried to show that Cumont is not altogether trust- 
 worthy. It is perhaps hardly necessary to point out the 
 triviality of such parallels of language as he has thought 
 it worth while to quote pp. 11-19. The recurrence of 
 single words as ordinary as TrapayycXyua (p. 11), 8vo-w7rctv 
 (p. 14), olovcl (p. 15), atyXr) (ib.), avTL<f>Oiyy€(THaL (p, 16), to, 
 ctKora (ib.), KaroKveiv (p. 17), e/crtVecr^at (p. 18), vcoTTog {lb.), 
 yv^pLo-fia (p. 19), has but slight significance for the dis- 
 cussion. But it could be directed against M. Cumont by 
 one who should take the trouble to compare Julian's 
 authentic writings thus verbally with the suspected letters, 
 as I have indicated in a striking case above. Cf. Julian's 
 favourite phrase cViXeii/^a /xe 6 xpoVog (28 a, 34 b, 41 b) 
 with rj}ia.s ye ovk iTTtkuipcL xp6vo<i [448 a] ; and 240 b : Tratcoviov 
 aKo? with 883 A {Ep. 15) : Tratcovtots <fiapfxdKOL<s, a striking 
 phrase, and. to my thinking, quite as worthy of citation as 
 firj Xrjye tovto TrpaxTcov (see Cumont, p. 17). In his use of 
 the latter phrase Cumont hardly plays fair. For the 
 spuriousness of E2J. 19 ought to be more convincingly 
 demonstrated before phrases are cited from it to prove the 
 spuriousness of Ep. 15. M. Cumont's arguments for the 
 identity of authorship of the lamblichus letters are 
 interesting and in many cases convincing. Stronger 
 proofs, however, than he has been able to adduce will be 
 demanded by students of Julian's writings before they will 
 consent to the rejection of Epp. 8, 15, 16, 19, 28, 32, 54, 
 57, 67, 73.^ 
 
 ' I cannot leave the question without a comment on one argu- 
 ment brought against certain of the letters by Schwarz {Philologus, 
 51, p. 626) and by Cumont (p. 20). I do not agree with them that 
 Julian is not likely to have written a letter containing only ' Sophis- 
 tische Scbwatzereien ' or • Sophistischer Schwulst ' (Schwarz, 
 
JULIAN AND DIO 101 
 
 II. Julian and Dio 
 
 A STUDY of Julian's sources would be incomplete without 
 some discussion of an article by Praechter in the Archiv 
 fur Geschichte dor Philosophie, v. 42, sqq. : * Dion Chry- 
 sostomus als Quelle Julians.' In support of his thesis 
 that Julian directly imitated Dio, Praechter makes a close 
 comparison of parts of Julian's Second Oration with pas- 
 sages in Dio's Orations. Julian only once mentions Dio by 
 name (212 c) ; there, after relating a story of Diogenes 
 and Alexander, he adds : et to) ttio-to? oAtwv. Praechter 
 (p. 43) rightly rejects Weber's theory ^ that Julian by 
 these words intended any disparagement of Dio as an 
 authoiity. On the other hand, the fact that in this single 
 quotation from Dio Julian should (as Praechter notes 
 p. 43) quote incorrectly, might argue a less intimate 
 acquaintance with his writings than Praechter assumes. 
 His method is to bring together certain passages in Julian 
 and Dio which show resemblances of thought and 
 language, or of thought only, and to conclude from 
 these resemblances that Julian was imitating Dio. 
 
 The question here arises, how far is such a conclusion 
 legitimate in the case of any two authors of the Greco- 
 
 p. 627, n. b). It must be remembered that Julian had his Sophis- 
 tical side, and when writing to Sophists was as likely as any one of 
 them to express himself in their rhetorical extravagant vein. That 
 this was not incompatible with sound common-sense and even philo- 
 sophy, and was epistolary etiquette for Sophist and Imperial pupil, 
 may be gathered from certain letters of Marcus Aurelius to Fronto, 
 notably the following : te hominem beatum hac eloquentia prae- 
 dit'nnl . . . O iirix^ip-fifiaral o rd^is \ o elegantia ! o lepos ! o 
 venustas ! o verba ! o nitor 1 o argutiae ! o kharites ! o i-a-K-qa-is ! 
 omnia ! Naber, p. 28, Ep. iii. ; with which may fitly be compared 
 Julian to Libanius, Ep. 14 : fxaKapios cT Kiy^iv qvtw, fxaWov Se tppoveiv 
 OVTW dwd/xfvos. i} xSyos, & (ppeves, & avvdecris, i) diaipeais, S) iirixcipijfjLara, 
 S) rd^is, i) acjiopfxal, & A.e|js, & apfiopia, &} crvvG-fiKT]. 
 
 ' Leipziger Studien., vol. x. p. 98. 
 
102 JULIAN AND DIO 
 
 Roman period, that is to say, in the case of men who were 
 steeped in the literature of the classic period, and wrote 
 reminiscence Greek based on that literature ? The answer 
 must be that it is legitimate only when a common source 
 cannot be found for such parallels. But even then it is 
 unsafe to dogmatise, for the common source may at any 
 time be discovered in the less read portions of the classic 
 authors ; or even in the more familiar fields, a coincidence 
 that has escaped notice in former readings may suddenly 
 strike the eye. But when such parallels can be traced to 
 a possible common source in the earlier literature, and 
 can, moreover, be illustrated from the works of other 
 Sophists, it is reasonable to suppose either that they had 
 become literary commonplaces, or that the writer who 
 used them went back consciously to the original source. 
 This would seem too obvious to insist upon, were it not 
 that Praechter has, in nearly all his examples, ignored 
 this side of the question, and has assumed conscious 
 imitation by a Sophistical writer of another Sophist's 
 illustrations. 
 
 An examination of Praechter' s citations from Julian 
 and Dio gives the following results. I take, first, those 
 passages for which Praechter claims that the influence of 
 Dio is most obvious. * Eine ganz evidente Benutzung 
 Dion's tritt dann aber wieder Julian, Or. ii. 8.5,' he says 
 (p. 48). 
 
 Dio, pp. 72-98 ' : "7 ov Julian, p. 85 : 17 yap ovk 
 
 iroWov<i Tcov Kakovfiivdiv jSacn- d/o^Koare Aapetov tov Ilcpcraiv 
 
 X.i(jiv iBelv €(TTL Ka7ry\ov<;...aWa fx,'r]vdp)(r]v fiicrOiOTOv . . . ttoAv- 
 
 Ap6/x(Dva fJLiV KOL %dpa^ov ort rcXeis l-mTdTTtLV cf>6pov<s > 
 
 iv 'AOyvats KaTTTyXeuovcrt, kol oOev avrw to kXclvov ovo/xa 
 
 VTTO 'AOrjvaloiv tovto aKOvovcn yeyovc Kara Travras dvOpu)7rovs 
 
 rovvofxa SiKacios fjtapxv d/covetv, cK^avcs. IkoXovv yap avrov 
 
 * I give Arnim's pagination as I have not at hand the edition 
 used by Praechter. 
 
JULIAN AND DIO 103 
 
 Aapetov Be rbv Trporepov ore Tlepo-aiv ot yviopifioi oTvmp 
 iv Baf3v\Q)Vi Koi Sovaat? exa- 'AOrjvaLOL rbv 'XoLpafi^ov. 
 TTT^Xeve KOL Uipa-aL avrbv €tl 
 
 Kol VVV KaXoV(TL KCtTTTyXoV, 
 
 OX) StKato)? K€KX7J<r6aL ; 
 
 I give first the evidence from other Sophists that this 
 was a literary commonplace. The same illustration occurs, 
 Aristides, Or. 46. p. 202 Dind., and ib. p. 257 ; also in 
 Themistius, 233 a and 298 a; and in Maximus of Tyre, 
 Diss. iv. 5. It remains only to give the common source, 
 not mentioned by Praechter. 
 
 Plato, GorgiaSj 518 b : ©captwv 6 dproKOTros koI 'XoLpal3o<i 
 
 6 KavrjXos. 
 
 But the Sophists who used the illustration from 
 the Gorgias had another passage also in mind when 
 they applied it to a king in a ^ao-tAiKos Xoyo?. It was a 
 reminiscence of Herod. Thalia, which is again echoed by 
 Julian, 9 b, and by Themistius, 233 a. It is the famous 
 statement of Herodotus that the Persians called Cyrus 
 * father,' Cambyses ' master,' and Darius ' tradesman ' 
 
 {KOLTrrjXo's). 
 
 Another passage in the Gorgias (470 e), the famous 
 refusal of Socrates to admit the happiness of the great 
 king, is echoed by Julian and Dio, as Praechter observes 
 (p. 46). But there is no need to suppose, with him, that 
 Julian, who probably was more familiar with Plato than 
 with Dio, drew upon the latter in this instance. The 
 effort of all PamXiKol Xoyoi was, as has been noted else- 
 where (Chapter I.), to prove that Plato's ideal ruler had 
 been realised in the subject of the encomium ; such a 
 passage, therefore, as that in the Gorgias would naturally 
 not escape the panegyrist, and we meet it again in the 
 Platonist Themistius (79 a b) : avrq {rj evfieveia) iroict 
 6ioeiK€.Xov . . . ovTiii Biorpcffirj's ytVcrat jSaa-iXev';, ovk iav tov 
 "A^to TTJs y^S aTToppi]^ ovS' av i/xTrXyarj viKpoiv ttJv 'Ao"tav. 
 
104 JULIAN AND DIO 
 
 The reference to Mount Athos which occurs in all three 
 authors was one of the rhetorical commonplaces ridiculed 
 byLucian/ and we need not, with Praechter (p. 47), trace 
 Julian's use of it to Dio. 
 
 Nor need we refer Julian's echo of a well-known pas- 
 sage of Xenophon {Merii. iii. 9, 10) : ^Sao-tAa? cl koX 
 dpxovras ov tov<; tol a-KrJTTTpa €XovTa<; €(j)rj €ti/ai, aAAa roi;g 
 €7rL(TT(tfX€vov<s apx€iv to Dio (p. 46, 19 ff.). Themistius, in 
 his encomium, has a reminiscence of it (11 c) : ovSkv 
 6(l>€\o<? 6p6rjv pxv ^xeLv Ttdpav, Stca-Tpajxpiivov 8k ■^Oo<;, Kal 
 Xpvcrovv pXv TO a-KYjirrpov k.t.X. 
 
 On page 49, Praechter says that Julian, in his delinea- 
 tion of the character of the ideal king, 'hat Dion stark 
 benutzt,' and supports his statement with : — 
 
 Dio, Or. i. p. 3, §15: Julian, 86: eo-rt 8e Trpwroi/ . 
 
 ccTTt 8r/ Trp'dJTov fxkv 6€(^v pikv €V<T€^y<:, 
 iTTtfjuX-q^. 
 
 But in the list of virtues always ascribed to the ideal 
 king, in a ^ao-iAt/cos Aoyos (cf. Menander's treatise quoted 
 chap, i.), eva-ejSeLa naturally holds a prominent place ; cf. too, 
 Aristides, ix. p. 103 D : r/piaro pXv yap, wa-inp Trpoa-rjK^i^ 
 airo €vcr€/?€ta?, and Themist. 9 B : wa-r elK9T(x)<i Oeoffukyj^ 
 /iacrtXcus 6 (faXdvOpioTrog. Praechter would see a reminiscence 
 of Dio p. 48. 86'^ (Arnim), where Dio says that the 
 true king values his friends above wealth, in J. 86 : 
 dyaTTa Sk ttXovtov ovtl tov ^^pucroJ koX dpyvpio jSpiOofxevov, 
 (fiiktov 8e d\rjOov<; €vvo(.a<s jxea-Tov. But both passages are a 
 reminiscence of the famous saying of Alexander echoed 
 
 ' Rhet. Praec. 18 : koI ael 6 ''AOas vXiiaQao koX 6 'E\\i}(rirovTos 
 7re^eyeo-0w Kal HeplT/s (pevyhw ; and Maximus of Tyre, xx. 8 : 
 'EWi](nrov70s ^evyvvrai, "Adws o/juttetoi. 
 
 ^ Yet earlier in his article (p. 45) Praechter considered the much 
 more striking coincidences of Dio, Or. iv. p. 98. 6 : tjSjoj/ fihv 
 -TTpocre^epeTO fia^av ^ ol olWol to iroXureKiaraTa ruv anluv, and J. 203 A : 
 ^laQii 7 V fi-o-Co-v TjSiof ?) av viiv 'XiKiKiKo.s rpairi^as, ' zu wenig frappant 
 als dass sich darauf irgend welche Schliisse bauen liesseu.' 
 
JULIAN AND DIO 105 
 
 by Themist. 266 a and 17 c : ovre ^(pva-Lov irXovro^ ovtc 
 
 dpyvpov TOcrdSe ovivrjcn fSaa-ikia o(Ta <^tXias ttXoOto?/ and it is 
 directly quoted by him 203 c : 'AXe^avSpos rotVw, 6 MaKeSwv, 
 epojTT/^ets OTTOV tov? $r)(Tavpov<s ej^ct, tov<s twv ^prjfjLdTUiv, tov<s 
 
 <jil\ovs Set^a?, etTTcv, iv tovtol^. Cf. Theon, Soph. Chr. i. ; 
 Stobaeus, Serm. 214. 
 
 The above passages are those most confidently quoted 
 by Praechter to prove Julian's dependence on Dio. In 
 other passages that he quotes there are certain similarities 
 of thought and language such as are natural in a rhetorical 
 composition as stereotyped as was the jSaa-ikLKos Xoyos. 
 As a further illustration of the too great assumptions 
 involved in Praechter 's method of argument, I add here 
 certain passages from Julian and Dio, not quoted by 
 Praechter, which at first sight would seem to be echoed 
 from Dio. 
 
 Dio, p. 52, 180 Arnim : Julian 50 d: Julian says 
 
 The ideal king thinks it he will not praise the posses- 
 
 aroTTov Nio-aiors /x,€v ittttovs sions of Constantius, ovSe 
 
 yw.€Ta7r€fi7r€(r^at, kol Kvvas LTnrwv Nt(rat(ov kolXXtj ovSk 
 
 'Iv8tK(£s. rrjv 'IvSwv Xl6oV' 
 
 Here is a striking resemblance ; but compare Maximus 
 
 Tyr. Diss. iv. §4: tc3 /3ao-iA.€t tw Ilepo-ojv Tpe^^L MyjSta 
 
 Nto-atov tTTTToi/, and Themist. 266 A. Themistius says he 
 
 would choose friends fiaXXov ^ Nio-atov lttttov kol kvvu 
 
 ' There is a strong likeness between Dio's expression of this 
 thought Or. iii. 86-104, and Themist. 17 c. And the passages 
 quoted by Praechter (p. 47), Julian, 83 d and Dio, i. p. 10. 19 (the 
 Phaethon myth), are paralleled by Themist. 17 d : rwv U rvpawiKwu 
 rh v\\/os iwiKivdwop' Sre yap ixaKicrra ahroils ^u/xfiadi^eiv ris vno\d^oi 
 T0T6 a-nuxraiiivoi KarifiaKov els Kpr]fxvhv fiaOvv ^ (pdpayya. KoiX-qv. 
 
 That the saying of Alexander was a rhetorical commonplace 
 might be demonstrated by Theon, Prog, in Spengel, vol. ii. p. 100. 
 10, and lb. vol. iii. p. 460. 17. Cf. for a similar idea, Plat. Lysis, 
 211 E, 
 
106 JULIAN AND DIO 
 
 KcXtlkov] and, again, 226 a, addressing Theodosius he 
 asks for what was Lycurgus praised — y 6tl xpvo-a ap/xara 
 
 avTOv TrpoeTTOfjiTreve Nfo-atwv L7nro)v ; Themistius, Maximus, 
 and Julian must, like Dio, have read Herod. 7. 40. 10 : 
 fiera 8k Ipol (to Mithras) Nr;a-atot /<aA.€o/xei/oi lttttol ScKa 
 K€Koorfji7jiJi€voL ws KaXXto-Ttt. Again, in the allegory in which 
 Julian describes the mission given to him by Helios 
 (229 sqq.), there are certain resemblances to Dio's account 
 of the Choice of Heracles (Or. i. 64 sqq.) as will be seen 
 from the following columns : — 
 
 Dio, Or. i. 64 : kol o ye JuUan, 229 sqq. : Zeus 
 
 Trar^p (Zevs) avrov fHpa- commands Helios eTTt/xc- 
 
 kAcovs) TroXkrjv cTri/xeAciai/ XcLordaL Sta<^cpdvT(os avrov 
 
 CTTOteiro. ('lovXiavov) Kat TrotyaaiVetv. 
 
 66. Hermes appears to 230 b : Hermes appears 
 
 Heracles: Kat ay€tAa/?a>i/avTov to him and says: — yyefx^v 
 
 a<f)pa(rTOv kol a/3aT0v avOpoi- uol iyoi co-o/xat Aetas Kat ofxa- 
 
 Trots 6S6v, €0)9 rjXOev irrL rtva A-earcpas bSov tovtI to fxaKpov 
 
 V7r€po)0v 6pov<s 7repL<f>avrj kol vTrepPdvTL ro ctkoXlov kol 
 
 <r<f>6Spa vif/rjXt^v ra 8e c^oj^ev c^ttoto/xov xoiptov. 230 D : 
 
 Seti/ois oLTTOTOfxov Kprj/jivoLS. ctyayojv 8k avrov Ittl ti fxiya 
 
 Kat viJ/rjXbv opos. 
 
 And cf. Dio 86 with JuHan 233-34. But we need not 
 suppose that Julian had echoed Dio. Themistius hi^s the 
 myth (280 a) in much the same words as Dio, and quotes 
 it as the famous one of Prodicus the Sophist, which is 
 found Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 21, and is mentioned by Cic. 
 De Off. i. 32, 118, and by Maximus of Tyre, Diss. xx. 1. 
 
 Julian himself refers to this myth (56 d), which proves 
 that he was familiar with it. Dio does not acknowledge 
 his debt to Prodicus. We are therefore justified in 
 believing that Julian derived this famous illustration from 
 sources other than Dio's first Oration. 
 
 While, however, we may decline to agree in special 
 
JULIA^" AND DIO 
 
 107 
 
 cases with the conclusions drawn by Praechter from these 
 coincidences in Dio and Julian, we may well believe that 
 Julian admired Dio Chrysostomus, and even used him 
 consciously. There seems to be a fair probability that, in 
 the following case, Julian had Dio in mind, though the 
 suggestion is offered with the reservations indicated earlier 
 in the discussion. 
 
 Cf. Dio, Or. i. 9 (Arnim) with Julian, 253 b. 
 
 Dio speaks of philo- Julian speaks of his 
 
 sophers as tovs Xoyovs irapa- Greek studies as a relaxa- 
 
 KA.T7cre(05 cVcKa (jiOeyyo/xevoL tion : wcrTrcp ol to. ySapca cf>opTLa 
 
 Trpbs avTOvs . . . wcnrep ol cf>ipovT€S kv rats loSats Ittlkou- 
 
 KIVOVI-TC? Kol fX€Ta<f>epOVT€? OVK ^L^OVCTLV aVTOt? Tr)V Tokoi- 
 
 €vcf>opov jSdpos cf>d€yyovTaL re iroipiav. 
 KoX ahovcriv rjcrvxrj to epyov 
 7rapafA.vOoviJL€voL. 
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 SPOTTMWOODH AND CO., NEW-STREKT SQUARB 
 
 LONDON- 
 
^xc-. 
 
Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 7lun'5lLU 
 
 ^4 Oci>57F 
 REC'D LD 
 
 OCT 21957 
 
 o&^ 
 
 ii- 
 
 Vi^ 
 
 DEC X 1 1988 
 
 MAY 24 1994 
 i 
 
 RECEIVED 
 
 fiOVl*i'68-IOPM 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 RECOLD 8BP2^7l-9^57 
 
 AUG2 8 1972 f^ 
 
 WBfBm 
 
 f.hlO 
 
 eCTl6 7^ 
 
 JUL 2 1971 7 
 
 jTODCCCIRC JUKC5.'94 
 
 ^ 21-100m-ll,'49(] 
 

 S3iyvaanA3i3>ia3aon 
 
 
 
 ^-a#^*J 
 
 wm^k 
 
 
 737^ 
 
 6 
 
 m- 
 
 M