Julian the apostate, the last Roman Pagan Emperor had a short reign of less than two years but he made a big splash and is arguably the most well known Emperor of the late Roman period. But various Christian theologians, chroniclers and thinkers would be highly critical of him and his championing of paganism after his death. So this article is part of a series on what his critics wrote about him. And in this post I’m going to look at how the late 4th/early 5th century Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus saw the Emperor and discuss his criticisms of Julians actions and works.
Who was Socrates Scholasticus?
Socrates Scholasticus was a Church historian who lived in Constantinople. He’s primarily known for his book ‘Historia Ecclesiastica’ (‘Church History’) which is a very detailed account from Constantine’s time on the never ending conflicts between the Arian Christians and Catholics and the numerous other heresies that were springing up in the eastern half of the Roman Empire and also the huge issues that a lot of Christians had with what was decided in the Council of Nicaea – where Jesus was officially elevated to divine status and therefore equal to God.
Socrates account is generally much more down to earth and with none of the excessive heaping of praise on Constantine due to his conversion to Christianity as Eusebius, for example, introduces in his work ‘Life of Constantine’. In fact pointing a finger at Eusebius, Socrates says himself he has no interest in panegyrics or excessive adulation of Constantine or his sons or in fact downplaying Julian or showing him excessive bad light because he was a pagan .
’Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author Eusebiushas but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts’.
Socrates then makes it clear he is more interested in the unvarnished truth and to his credit he does initially make an allowance for the fact that Julian was one of the more well read and cultured of the emperors calling him a ‘prince who was eminently distinguished for his learning’ although as we’ll see he does still decide to attack Julian for his pagan sympathies.
‘And as I must needs speak of the character of this prince who was eminently distinguished for his learning, let not his admirers expect that I should attempt a pompous rhetorical style, as if it were necessary to make the delineation correspond with the dignity of the subject: for my object being to compile a history of the Christian religion, it is both proper in order to the being better understood, and consistent with my original purpose, to maintain a humble and unaffected style’.
Socrates Scholastics attacks the eulogy written by the pagan Libanius for Julian
The Emperor Julian died on the 26th of June 363 during the war against the Persians. His body was brought back by Jovian who succeeded him as Emperor and he was eventually buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople despite not being a Christian. On the death of Julian, the well known and respected pagan philosopher Libanius, who was a friend of Julian would write his funeral oration which he named ‘Julianus’. But this funeral oration referred positively to Julian’s policies in restraining the spread of Christianity and of his book ‘Contra Galilaeos ‘ meaning ‘Against the Christians’ which was an anti-Christian polemic. Socrates admits that Libanius was as he puts it ‘an excellent rhetorician’ but uses this funeral oration for Julian as the reason to not only find fault with Libanius but also with Julian. on a more general front. In Book three of Historia Ecclesiastica, he explains himself before beginning his criticism.
‘Since then he Libanius has spoken in the spirit of a pagan, a sophist, and the friend of him whom he lauded, we shall endeavour to meet what he has advanced, as far as we are able.’
Argument 1 That Libanius praises Julian excessively
So let’s get into the details of what Socrates wrote about Julian and in fact Libanius as well. His arguments can be boiled down into ten different points and we’ll go through those one by one. Socrates firstly accuses Libanius of comparing Julian too favourably with Porphyry in his funeral oration. Porphyry was a formidable pagan polemicist against Christianity who died around thirty years before the birth of Julian. And he’s generally regarded as the greatest critic of Christianity whose works have survived in some fashion to the present day. Libanius, Socrates argues, in his praise for the dead Emperor suggests Julian’s arguments in his work against Christianity were more powerful than those of Porphyry. And that Julian goes about his mission more eloquently and persuasively than Porphyry did. Porphyry came from Tyre and is therefore referred to as the Tyrian Sage or Tyrian old man by Libanius. Socrates quotes what Libanius in his oration wrote about Julian…
‘When the winter had lengthened the nights, the emperor made an attack on those books which made the man of Palestine both God, and the Son of God: and by a long series of arguments having proved that these writings, which are so much revered by Christians, are ridiculous and unfounded, he has evinced himself wiser and more skilful than the Tyrian old man Porphyry. But may this Tyrian sage be propitious to me, and mildly bear with what has been affirmed, seeing that he has been excelled by his son!’ – Libanius
So in this post I’m going to ignore Julian’s point regarding the paradox of Jesus being god and son of god at the same time. I’ll deal with that in a future article. But regarding Socrates suggesting Libanius’ praise for the dead Julian is praise too much and the suggestion that Julian was a better opponent of Christianity than Porphyry, Socrates is forgetting that this funeral oration by Libanius is really a eulogy for the dead emperor and the whole purpose of a eulogy is to show the deceased person in a favourable light. So even though in Socrates’ time the general impression was that Porphyry’s work was the gold standard of polemics against Christianity, it didn’t make sense to show Julian in a negative fashion at his funeral.
And staying on the issue of who was a better critic of Christianity, Socrates is forgetting that Julian’s life was cut short and he died at the pretty young age of 32. He never had the chance, growing up in a Christian environment during his youth, to freely voice his opinion or write on the subject. And of course once he became emperor he had just two short years to both manage the empire – a full time job in itself – and to write his polemic.
Porphyry on the other hand lived during the age of pagan Emperors and also lived to a ripe old age and therefore had much more time, opportunity and freedom to write his work against Christianity. So it’s unfair in many senses to compare the two on their works.
Argument 2 That Libanius is prone to changing his opinion
Socrates also attacks Libanius for flattery and essentially bending with the wind in terms of opinion. An example he quotes his Libanius writing flattering words about Constantius II when he was alive and Emperor. However after Constantius’ death and during the reign of Julian, Socrates writes that Libanius presumably because he was a pagan himself then began writing severe criticism of the dead Emperor.
‘For while Constantius was alive he wrote encomiums upon him; but after his death he brought the most insulting and reproachful charges against him. So that if Porphyry had been emperor, Libanius would certainly have preferred his books to Julian’s: and had Julian been a mere sophist, he would have termed him a very indifferent one, as he does Ecebolius in his Epitaph upon Julian.’
So essentially his argument is that Libanius can’t be relied on because he is a flatterer. However it has to be remembered that Julian was dead and Jovian who was a devout Christian was now Emperor. So praising a pagan Emperor for his anti-Christian stance was now once again a risky endeavour. Nevertheless Libanius still praises him for it. And this showed a certain amount of boldness. So Libanius certainly wasn’t necessarily changing his opinion due to the exigencies of the political and religious situation. If he was then he would be criticising Julian instead to curry favour with Jovian.
Argument 3 That Julian scoffs at Christianity rather than putting forward sound reasons
Socrates also suggests that Julian like Porphyry before him, spends more time showing contempt for the bible and Christian beliefs rather than actually putting forward sound arguments against Christian dogma.
‘That both Julian and Porphyry, whom Libanius calls the Tyrian old man, took great delight in scoffing, is evident from their own works’.
And that therefore the works of both Porphyry and Julian are given much more respect than they really deserve. And Socrates suggests that in any case it was too late for Julian to try and overthrown Christianity.
‘In the first place he says that the emperor undertook to attack’ these books during the long winter nights. Now to attack’ means to make the writing of a confutation of them a task, as the sophists commonly do in teaching the rudiments of their art; for he had perused these books long before, but attacked them at this time. But throughout the long contest into which he entered, instead of attempting to disprove anything by sound reasoning, as Libanius asserts, in the absence of truth he had recourse to sneers and contemptuous jests, of which he was excessively fond; and thus he sought to hold up to derision what is too firmly established to be overthrown.’
He then argues that both Julian and Porphyry use straw man arguments and that many of their arguments could equally be used against paganism which they knew but purposefully avoid to prevent their own case from being weakened. He doesn’t however address any of the numerous arguments that either Porphyry or Julian made against Christian beliefs. However to be fair Socrates book was more on Church history than a counter against either Porphyry or Julian so he can be forgiven on that front.
Argument 4 That pagans criticised their own great thinkers
Socrates next argues that both Porphyry and Julian do not hesitate to criticise or make fun of the great thinkers of yesteryear and that counts against them as they have little respect for the great men of the past. Porphyry for example in one of his works called the ‘History of the Philosophers’ had criticised the famous Greek philosopher Socrates who was generally regarded for his wisdom, modesty and virtue. And in the same fashion Julian in his work ‘The Caesers’ lampoons various previous Emperors. Julian, he writes…
‘…displayed a like morbidness of mind in his book, entitled The Caesars, wherein he traduces all his imperial predecessors, not sparing even Mark the philosopher. Their own writings therefore show that they both took pleasure in taunts and reviling’.
By Mark the philosopher he is referring to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Surely, he suggests, someone like Socrates and by extension other great thinkers like Plato and Aristotle were beyond criticism? And surely Julian had no place in lampooning a thinker like Marcus Aurelius as well as other previous Emperors.
But this is a weak point as the Greeks believed in free discourse and free thinking. And certainly there was no great injunction in not believing or banning criticism of Socrates at all in the Greek way of thinking. And even Plato and Aristotle disagreed with Socrates on various issues. And that was all part of the cut and thrust of talking about philosophy. And as far as Julian’s work ’The Caesers’ was concerned the work was written as a comedy and which lampooned all and sundry – not just Marcus Aurelius. And of course lampooning the previous Emperor didn’t necessarily mean he agreed or disagreed with him on any issue of philosophy. Free thought and the freedom to criticise and challenge previous beliefs was central to Greek thinking.
This was of course quite a polar opposite to Christianity where belief in a certain dogma was necessary and beyond question. Anyone who questioned or disagreed with any dogma or belief could be labelled a heretic and thrown out of the church. There was huge number of heresies in that time and the way the Church dealt with them was quite different and draconian compared to pagan differences in belief. So this difference in opinion showed the chasm that had opened up between pagan free thinking and the Christian religion where any criticism of Jesus or the apostles or saints was complete anathema.
Argument 5 Gregory of Nazienzus against Julian
Socrates then also refers and quotes from Gregory of Nazienzus who in his Second Oration against the Pagans mentions Julian hiding his true feelings regarding paganism before he became Emperor. And that Julian had already been looking in this direction well before he rose to power. In other words that he was living a lie. And that his reasons for visiting Athens during his youth were not sincere.
‘These things were made evident to others by experience, after the possession of imperial authority had left him free to follow the bent of his inclinations: but I had foreseen it all, from the time I became acquainted with him at Athens. Thither he came, by permission of the emperor, soon after the change in his brother’s fortune. His motive for this visit was twofold: one reason was honorable to him, viz. to see Greece, and attend the schools there; the other was a more secret one, which few knew anything about, for his impiety had not yet presumed to openly avow itself, viz. to have opportunity of consulting the sacrificers and other impostors respecting his own destiny’.
Argument 6 That Julian was unfit to be Emperor
In fact Socrates would quote more from Gregory of Nazienzus which portrayed Julian in pretty bad light mentioning many of his body language traits but in an extremely negative way and generally remarking on his personality being fickle or extravagant in mind and thinking. And essentially suggesting that Julian was not really fit to be Emperor not having the persona required for the position.
‘For it seemed to me that no good was portended by a neck seldom steady, the frequent shrugging of shoulders, an eye scowling and always in motion, together with a frenzied aspect; a gait irregular and tottering, a nose breathing only contempt and insult, with ridiculous contortions of countenance expressive of the same thing; immoderate and very loud laughter, nods as it were of assent, and drawings back of the head as if in denial, without any visible cause; speech with hesitancy and interrupted by his breathing; disorderly and senseless questions, answers no better, all jumbled together without the least consistency or method. Why need I enter into minute particulars? Such I foresaw he would be beforehand as I found him afterwards from experience’.
And Gregory would write that he had essentially predicted that Julian would come to power and very unfairly compares his tenure as Emperor to the various biblical disasters and cataclysms and seemed to be satisfied with his premature end.
’And if any of those who were then present and heard me, were now here, they would readily testify that when I observed these prognostics I exclaimed, “Ah! how a great a mischief to itself is the Roman empire fostering!” And that when I had uttered these words I prayed God that I might be a false prophet. For it would have been far better that I should have been convicted of having formed an erroneous judgment, than that the world should be filled with so many calamities, and that such a monster should have appeared as never before had been seen: although many deluges and conflagrations are recorded, many earthquakes and chasms, and descriptions are given of many ferocious and inhuman men, as well as prodigies of the brute creation, compounded of different races, of which nature produced unusual forms. His end has indeed been such as corresponds with the madness of his career.’
Argument 7 That Julian was misconstruing the meaning of the Bible
But leaving what Gregory of Nazienzus thought of Julian, Socrates then returns to his own thoughts and also accuses Julian and Porphyry of straw-manning or even changing the meaning of what the Bible said in various portions. And that Julian scoffs at the Biblical god for his anthropomorphic nature, in other words, God is rather spoken of as a man with human attributes like anger and jealousy rather than a supreme divinity being above and beyond human understanding and human weaknesses. And also that they – meaning Julian and Porphyry – being skilled in sophistry abuse their power to fool Christians back into the pagan fold.
‘It is also very obvious that the emperor in his discourses was intent on beguiling the ignorant, and did not address himself to those who possess the form of the truth as it is presented in the sacred Scriptures’.
And later he writes that Julian and Porphyry…
‘…In their various compilations they have endeavored to do violence to the truth, sometimes by the corruption of passages of sacred Scripture, at others by either adding to the express words, and putting such a construction upon them as suited their own purpose, many have demonstrated, by confuting their cavils, and exposing their fallacies’.
Again he doesn’t mention any specific places where he thinks Julian or Porphyry have done that although he mentions other Christian apologists like Origen for example having already considered and refuted their objections.
Argument 8 That everyone interprets the Bible differently
Julian had also scoffed at the literal meaning of the bible. Already in that time there were many Christians who realised the literal meaning of say the Genesis story or the great flood or the plagues sent on Egypt had repercussions which made them impossible to believe and that maybe these stories were therefore impossible to take literally. But then there was the problem of who to believe and what to believe in the bible.
‘He is also very indignant because all men do not form the same opinion of them; and inveighs against those Christians who understand the sacred oracles in a more literal sense. But it ill became him to rail so vehemently against the simplicity of the vulgar, and on their account to behave so arrogantly towards the sacred Scriptures: nor was he warranted in turning with aversion from those things which others rightly apprehended, because forsooth they understood them otherwise than he desired they should’.
So as in this day and age, there was great difference in opinion amongst Christians as to how to understand and take the bible mythology. And Socrates rails at Julian for mocking the Christians on this aspect although it has to be said the Christians of that time mocked the pagan stories of the gods. So there shouldn’t have been an issue on this front.
Argument 9 That both Porphyry and Julian turned away from Christianity for the wrong reasons
His next argument was that both Julian and Porphyry were angry ex-Christians who were turning upon their former beliefs with the expected zeal that any apostate would show. Socrates suggests Porphyry was an ex-Christian who had had, through bad experience with Christians, decided in anger to renounce his former religion.
’But now as it seems a similar cause of disgust seems to have operated upon him to that which affected Porphyry, who having been beaten by some Christians at Caesarea in Palestine and not being able to endure such treatment, from the working of unrestrained rage renounced the Christian religion: from hatred of those who had beaten him he took to write blasphemous works against Christians, as Eusebius Pamphilus has proved who at the same time refuted his writings’.
And he suggests Julian too had followed the same route. Perhaps he was hinting at Constantius having Julian’s father and brother killed being the cause of his apostasy. And perhaps there is some weight in that although it’s known Julian had a natural interest in Greek philosophy and only gave up Christianity at the age of 20 during his studies rather than through hatred of Constantius. Certainly he never attributes his apostasy to his treatment by the previous Emperor.
Argument 10 That pagans also raised men to divine status
Socrates final argument was that Julian showed hypocrisy of the highest order for scoffing at Christians for elevating the man Jesus to divine status, for surely pagans did exactly the same for their emperors. When a Roman Emperor died he was immediately seen as joining the gods. In fact he accuses Libanius of doing exactly this to Julian after his death – that of seeing him as a god.
‘But when Libanius the Sophist says in derision, that the Christians make a man of Palestine both God and the Son of God,’ he appears to have forgotten that he himself has deified Julian at the close of his oration. For they almost killed,’ says he, the first messenger of his death, as if he had lied against a god.’ And a little afterwards he adds, O thou cherished one of the gods! thou disciple of the gods! thou associate with the gods!’.
In fact he even labels Libanius as elevating Porphyry himself as suggested by his oration when he writes ‘May the Syrian meaning Porphyry be propitious to me’. This raising to divine status he said was unequivocal and wasn’t just praise. Many persons elevated to divine status were in fact drunkards like Hercules and Bachus rather than sober upstanding men.
’We might indeed show by a variety of instances that the practice of deifying human beings was far from uncommon among the heathen, nay, that they did so without the slightest hesitation.’
And in fact it wasn’t just Emperors but many other heroes and other personalities who had been deified and including many who did not deserve this accolade because of their actions. Pagans like Atys a priest in Phrygia was seen as the personification of the gods Adonis and Bacchus. He also cites the more famous example of Alexander the Great being made a god when he visited the oracle of Delphi. The Oracle had declared Alexander to be ‘King divine concealed in mortal form’.
’Again, when Alexander, king of the Macedonians, passed over into Asia, the Amphictyons courted his favor, and the Pythoness uttered this oracle: To Zeus supreme among the gods, and Athene Tritogenia pay homage, and to the king divine concealed in mortal form, him Zeus begat in honor to be the protector and dispenser of justice among mortals, Alexander the king.’ These are the words of the demon at Delphi, who when he wished to flatter potentates, did not scruple to assign them a place among the gods’.
And continuing on this same point Socrates point out that although the deification could be put down to simple flattery, that didn’t explain lesser men who simply didn’t have sufficient qualities getting the same honour and being elevated to status of gods. And he gives the example of Cleomedes the pugilist – or boxer – who was made a god as commanded by the Oracle of Delphi even though various people strongly rejected this idea.
‘The last of the heroes is Cleomedes, the Astypalian. Him honor with sacrifices; for he is no longer a mortal.’ Because of this oracle Diogenes the cynic, and Oenomaus the philosopher, strongly condemned Apollo’.
Another classic example was Hadrian who had raised his dead companion Antinuous to the status of god. Socrates writes that Libanius didn’t have an issue with these examples and many others that the pagan Oracles raised which he terms ‘ridiculous and contemptible absurdities’ and which Libanius would surely have known about. Meanwhile he argued that Christianity was different in that faith in Jesus was paramount before his divine status consul be understood.
‘Moreover, that man in Christ was united to the Godhead, so that while he was apparently but man, he was the invisible God, and that both these things are most true, the divine books of Christians distinctly teach. But the heathen before they believe, cannot understand: for it is a divine oracle that declares ‘Unless ye believe, assuredly ye shall not understand.’
However the praise and the accolade of the elevation to god status of the Roman Emperor was essentially quite different to the Christian belief that Jesus was god himself, that he always been god or part of god and creator off the universe. This wasn’t an accolade or mark of respect – rather tit was a belief that he was the divine and always had been.
Summing up
So summing up there were various points raised by Socrates Scholasticus – some better than others while some are really personal attacks as with the points raised by Gregory of Nazienzus. But it does give us a valuable insight into a 5th century point of view into the man. And I’ll go through what other writers wrote about him in future posts
