Reign Of Julian Research Articles

Julian’s Apostates: Conversion to Paganism in the Middle of the Fourth Century

The article delves into the issue of apostasy among the citizens of the Roman Empire during the brief reign of Julian. It provides an overview of the tactics employed by the emperor to convert his Christian subjects to paganism and evaluates their success across different strata of late Roman society, including the bureaucracy, military, Christian clergy, intellectual elite, and common people. It is concluded that Julian’s efforts at returning the Roman Empire to paganism were far more successful than it has traditionally been thought.

Julian, Arles, and the Eagle

Early during the reign of Julian the Apostate as Augustus (360–363), the mint at Arles began adding a small eagle to the reverse of the coins that it produced, whether in gold, silver, or bronze. However, it had discontinued this practice by the start of the reign of his successor Jovian. This eagle has been variously explained as a symbolic reference to Julian’s paganism, as a symbol of Roman imperial power, or as a reference to some real incident involving an eagle. It is argued here that it was really an issue mark, with no connection to any other features within the relevant reverse designs, and that its significance can be understood only in the context of the traditional choice of issue marks at Arles. Since Arles seems to have allowed mint officials to sign their names upon their product in the form of monograms, it is argued that the addition of the eagle to the coins may represent a slight variation of this practice. In this context, the eagle is best understood as a visual pun upon the name of a senior mint official, probably the procurator monetae himself, named Aquila or something similar.

The Palestinian Earthquake of May 363 in Philostorgius, the Syriac Chronicon miscellaneum , and the Letter Attributed to Cyril on the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple

Of the sources that report the Palestinian earthquake of 363, only an eighth-century fragment of the fifth-century Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, the seventh-century Syriac Chronicon miscellaneum , and the (probably) fifth-century letter attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the rebuilding of the Temple record details of destruction outside Jerusalem. Analysis of these texts establishes a close but indirect connection among them, made even clearer by a new reading of the manuscript correcting an error in the standard edition of the Syriac chronicle, which inaccurately reports the textual evidence for the date of the earthquake. The most likely source of the information about the earthquake is the hypothetical Arian (Homoean) History, probably written in Antioch in the 370s, in which the earthquake was seen as punishment for the Palestinian cities that persecuted Christians in the reign of Julian, and is thus to be understood in the wider context of the debate over the reign of Julian between Antiochene Christians and pagans, such as Libanius, who interpreted the catastrophe as announcing and mourning the emperor's death. That Antiochene tradition, represented by John Chrysostom, Ammianus, and Theophanes, does not mention an earthquake in connection with the failure of Julian's attempt to rebuild the Temple suggests that the earthquake that hit the Palestinian cities and the fire that stopped the rebuilding of the Temple could be circulated and debated as independent events, raising the possibility that it was Christian tradition that conflated them, producing the early and widespread tradition that both an earthquake and a fire stopped Julian's project.

Donatus ‘paene totam Africam decepit’. How?

Jerome was writing De viris illustribus in c. 393, and his verdict on Donatus of Carthage conceded that he had indeed ‘deceived nearly the whole of Africa’, an aim echoed by Augustine in his satirical anti-Donatist poem composed the same year. In fact, the year 393 had not been a good one for the Donatists. The high-handed acts of the new bishop of Carthage, Primian (391–412+), had provoked a schism among moderate and traditional members of the Church in proconsular Africa and Zeugitana (modern Tunisia). About one hundred bishops from these provinces had rallied to the cause of Maximian, a deacon in the Church at Carthage who was also a descendant of Donatus himself. In the meantime, the Catholic Church, condemned to minority status since the reign of Julian (361–3), had begun to reassert itself through Aurelius, its new bishop of Carthage (392–430). In 393 it held an important council at Hippo where Augustine, even though only a presbyter, had been the preacher.

The Three Phases of the Taurobolium

A STUDY OF ALL the epigraphic and literary evidence directly concerned with the taurobolium suggests that there are three distinct phases of the rite. The first phase is dated approximately by inscriptions to the period ca. 135 B.C.-A.D. 159. In this phase the rite was not connected with any particular deity, although it was almost certainly religious in nature. The second phase is again dated by inscriptions to the period A.D. 159-ca. 290. In this phase the rite was adopted into the cult of the Magna Mater, initially at Rome but soon spreading throughout the rest of Italy, Gaul, Spain, and western Africa. With the advent of the Christian emperors the performance of the rite is recorded less often, but beginning with the reign of Julian there was a renaissance which flared briefly under the patronage of the pagan aristocracy in Rome until the final disappearance of the rite soon after A.D. 390. In this final phase the taurobolium was celebrated only in a very limited area, or rather group of areas, and became a perquisite of the aristocracy. In all three phases, the criobolium occurs as well as the taurobolium. In the final phase, the taurobolium and criobolium are linked together very closely in single inscriptions, and there is an inscription of the second phase from Corduba in Spain dated to A.D. 238, where the criobolium and taurobolium are mentioned together.' This link in the later phases indicates that the two rites were similar, if not identical, except for the nature of the animal involved. There being no significant difference between the two rites (except for the animal) implied in any other inscriptions, they will be treated here as essentially the same rite. The evidence for the earliest known taurobolia is confined to eight inscriptions and one literary reference.2 Of the inscriptions, three are undated, but we may safely assume that they all antedate A.D. 159, since none of them mention the Magna Mater; as we shall see later, the taurobolium at that time became associated with her cult, and all subsequent private taurobolium inscriptions mention her. Along with Kolbe and

Ammianus Marcellinus and the Curia of Antioch

IN A fairly recent study E. A. thompson analyzed Ammianus' methods and attitudes, observing that in all likelihood the historian was born into the hereditary order of curiales, or municipal senators, in his native city of Antioch, and that his few prejudices may perhaps be ascribed to this cause.' In fact, Thompson is inclined to accept Ensslin's suggestion that Ammianus was actually threatened with conscription for curial service during the reign of Julian.2 The problem is intriguing, and even though it will probably never admit of a final solution, I should like to call attention to a neglected source which may be properly drawn into the orbit of conjecture. For, once inaugurated, a promising line of speculation normally passes through two more stages: all of the pertinent data are brought to bear upon it, and then the assumptions are castigated and, if necessary, revised. Most of my remarks belong to the second of these phases, but the third of course represents an equally imperative duty. Let us first examine the three texts which Ensslin cited in support of his inference: