Day 152 – Ken here (W)(2-10-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.25, pp.980-990)

I can’t believe it’s Wednesday already! Lots of rain here, and flooding, which is typical for monsoon season (or maybe monsoon season with a twist of climactic change). I’m feeling a little under the weather myself (my stock phrase, I know), and a little dramatic and theatrical after just having seen the DVD of the movie The Watchmen (which strikes me as having been written to a 12 year old audience – but thats another story – apologies to fans). So… today might be a tad short.

It is the year 365, and we continue today in the extreme twilight of all we have known and understood about Antiquity, the Empire, Rome, and Western Civilization from the last nearly-thousand Gibbon-pages. The Oracles deserted, the temples en-ruined, the new Christian Empire wracked with dissension, bathed in blood, and prelates living like Russian Mafia with hired armies and the equivalent of whole fleets of late model, black Mercedes patrolling the streets of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, etc. covered in gold and silver and pearls. It is a time of extremes and opportunity and change. These same Bishops will be called Fathers of the Church and Saints in later years, when what little knowledge of the 3rd and 4th centuries extant is re-purposed as myth and legend masquerading as history.

This is the last generation to remember the old Europe, to have a sizable pagan population still visible, to have a strong daily connection with the past and its architecture, literature, religions, languages, myths, culture. Five hundred years before this, the Mediterranean was at the height of the Alexandrian Renaissance – Antiquity wildly creative and exuberant, five hundred years from now, the Carolingian Renaissance will be petering out and the great quest of the Age will be TO SAVE the (very) little that remains of Roman/Greek knowledge still in the West before it is all mislaid/destroyed and completely forgotten.

Gibbon and the 2 generations just preceding him are the first historians in 1,300 years to look at the current history (the 300’s) we are reading with the same rational, educated eyes as Ammianus Marcellinus (huge source in Gibbon), who is documenting this mid-century history of his country – Rome – thinking he is but one in a long line of historians stretching back at least half a millenium. But Ammianus is the last of his kind for 1,300 years. We are in the twilight.

And just for that reason, that the 4th century is the CUSP of old and new Europe (the new Europe about to be born in the Dark Ages – we are the children of the Dark Ages) – the 4th century is very interesting (at least to me). Some small changes now will have huge consequences later. Some huge events now are going to be swallowed up in history – to have minimal effect on later generations or to be forgotten entirely. No one knows (in our time – the 4th century) that the world is about to end, and a new one about to be born. But the old will soon be forced to its knees, and then left prostrate, and then remain only as a fading memory – and all this will take place in the next 30 years.

The Story
 
Valentinian/Valens and Christianity – Valens Persecution

Valentinian – the last Roman Roman Emperor

Valentinian professes religious toleration for the 12 years of his reign, although he is in the West, and the West is decidedly, Trinitarian/Athanasian (364-375)

Valens complies with the Toleration ,but is instructed by an Arian priest (well, the Bishop of Constantinople – after all Valens is emperor over all the East) (during his catechism – he was baptized Arian before he went on started his campaigns as a precaution just in case he was killed – actually many “Christians” waited to be baptized on their death-beds) (obviously this Valens is a CAUTIOUS, PRUDENT fellow)

Valens persecutes the Catholics (Christian on Christian), continuing the common Gibbon theme that there is nothing more bloodthirsty than a Christian (367-378)

Valens persecutes the always-persecuted Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria – Athan. goes into exile for the 5th time

Valens accidentally kills 80 Catholic priests – burnt on a ship

All Christians hate that Pagans and Jews are officially protected. Christians persecute them anyway.

Catholics riot and persecute Arians

Gibbons makes a VERY GOOD POINT – that all this persecution of Valens is written by FUTURE CATHOLICS writing about what they consider one of the last great Christian Persecutions - its all very suspicious

Gibbon notes 3 examples of why the persecution probably didn’t occur – at least not the way it appeared in the later chronicles – 1) The Silence of Valentinian (a Catholic) could show that there weren’t any real systematic abuses, but some isolated instances of monks-gone-awry (a common 4th cent problem) – 2) Basil of Caesarea lambasted Valens mercilessly, and was awarded an enormous “town” to turn into a leper hospital (a pet project of Basil’s) - 3) The only extant law of Valens that remotely hits Catholics is the law requiring tax-exempt monks in Egypt (EGYPT AGAIN!!! – you always have to watch Egyptians) who were joining monasteries to avoid taxation but “forgetting” to give up all their worldly possessions – the law states, pay tax or renounce possessions (Codex Theodosianus 1.xii, titli, leg 64) – hardly a persecution there

Example of Luxury and Worldliness of 4th century Clergy – the Bishop Damasus – Bishop of Rome (360-384) – see below

 
Valentinian Foreign Wars – Arena 1. Germany

After Julian in known to be dead, the Germans attack quickly on all fronts in 365

Counter attack by Romans – early 366, at 1st with mixed results

The Herulians and the Jovians Legions (the crack Imperial troops) lose their standard (the most grievous loss a legion could sustain) to the Alemanni

Valentinian gathers them in, proposes they be sold into slavery (actually a mercy – usually every 10th man might be killed) – they beg him to prove their worth (CLEVER VALENTINIAN)

Gibbon tells how the Herulians and Jovians Legions take German tribe after German tribe – Jovinus, the general in charge gets the consulship in 367 - (AND AMAZINGLY its exactly so if you look it up – FL. Iovinus (for the West) in 367 in the list of Consuls on Wiki (remember to scroll down PAST THE BC’s into the AD’s – the first numbers in descending order are all BC (BCE)(here – it’s also in the LINKS list to the right) – (little stuff like that AMAZES me – that Gibbon is accurate, and we can still look it all up and corroborate Gibbon’s text – it makes you appreciate the HUGE amount of work he did compiling the 1400 year, 3000 page history he wrote of Rome)

 

The Bishop Damasus of Rome (366-384) - (from a cornice in St Peters, Vatican City) a man Gibbon particularily held up as an example (a bad example) of what was going very wrong with the Imperial Christian Church in the last half of the Fourth Century. Gibbon is flabbergasted by him, and the more so because Damasus got prominent vituperative Christian writers (Jerome for example) to propagandize in his favor. Note the S. in his name above - he is Saint Damasus now (1500's)

 
The Bishop Damasus of Rome – Gibbon’s Study in Fantastic 4th Century Clerical Lives
The Bishop Damasus merited nearly 2 pages of Gibbon excoriation and dis-embowelment. The big 4: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria were infamous for their religious inter-Christian warfare and Gibbon pulls no punches in re-creating the scene for our own personal enlightenment.

This per Gibbon:

Ambition and luxury of Damascus, bishop of Rome. A.D. 366-384.

Damasus, bishop of Rome, who was constrained to stigmatise the avarice of his clergy by the publications of the law of Valentinian, had the good sense, or the good fortune, to engage in his service the zeal and abilities of the learned Jerom; and the grateful saint has celebrated the merit and purity of a very ambiguous character.

But the splendid vices of the church of Rome, under the reign of Valentinian and Damasus, have been curiously observed by the historian Ammianus, who delivers his impartial sense in these expressive words:- “The praefecture of Juventius was accompanied with peace and plenty, but the tranquillity of his government was soon disturbed by a bloody sedition of the distracted people.

The ardour of Damasus and Ursinus to seize the episcopal seat surpassed the ordinary measure of human ambition They contended with the rage of party; The quarrel was maintained by the wounds and death of their followers; and the praefect, unable to resist or to appease the tumult, was constrained by superior violence to retire into the suburbs. Damasus prevailed: the well-disputed victory remained on the side of his faction; one hundred and thirty-seven dead bodies were found in the Basilica of Sicininus, where the Christians hold their religious assemblies, and it was long before the angry minds of the people resumed their accustomed tranquillity.

When I consider the splendour of the capital, I am not astonished that so valuable a prize should inflame the desires of ambitious men, and produce the fiercest and most obstinate contests. The successful candidate is secure that he will be enriched by the offerings of matrons; that, as soon as his dress is composed with becoming care and elegance, he may proceed in his chariot through the streets of Rome; and that the sumptuousness of the Imperial table will not equal the profuse and delicate entertainments provided by the taste and at the expense of the Roman pontiffs.

How much more rationally (continues the honest Pagan) would those pontiffs consult their true happiness, if, instead of alleging the greatness of the city as an excuse for their manners, they would imitate the exemplary life of some provincial bishops, whose temperance and sobriety, whose mean apparel and downcast looks, recommend their pure and modest virtue to the Deity and his true worshippers!”

The schism of Damasus and Ursinus was extinguished by the exile of the latter; and the wisdom of the praefect Praetextatus restored the tranquillity of the city. Praetextatus was a philosophic Pagan, a man of learning, of taste, and politeness; who disguised a reproach in the form of a jest, when he assured Damasus that if he could obtain the bishopric of Rome, he himself would immediately embrace the Christian religion.

This lively picture of the wealth and luxury of the popes in the fourth century becomes the more curious as it represents the intermediate degree between the humble poverty of the apostolic fisherman and the royal state of a temporal prince whose dominions extend from the confines of Naples to the banks of the Po.

(DEF v.2 ch.25, pp.986-988)

and this from the footnotes to this passage (where Gibbon deposits the juicier details he is too shy to put up in the main text):

Note 081
Jerom himself is forced to allow, crudelissimae interfectiones diversi sexus perpetratae (in Chron p. 186 [tom. viii. p. 809, ed. Vallars.]). But an original libel or petition of two presbyters of the adverse party has unaccountably escaped. They affirm that the doors of the basilica were burnt, and that the roof was untiled; that Damasus marched at the head of his own clergy, gravediggers, charioteers, and hired gladiators; that none of his party were killed, but that one hundred and sixty dead bodies were found. This petition is published by the P. Sirmond, in the first volume of his works.

(DEF v.2 ch.25, p.987, fn 81)

Note 084
Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xxxii. p. 526) describes the pride and luxury of the prelates who reigned in the Imperial cities; their gilt car, fiery steeds, numerous train, etc. The crowd gave way as to a wild beast.

(DEF v.2 ch.25, p.987, fn 84)

Day 151 – Ken here (T)(2-9-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.970-980)

 
The Story
 
Final Division of the Empire

Unbeknownst to anyone, the final break between the two sides of the empire came with the (very amicable) brother-emperors Valens and Valentinian – the weaker took the East (Valens), the stronger the West (Valentinian) (June 364)

It was an administrative division like all the others that had occurred in the last 150 years, but this time, the two halves began to lead separate lives (unintentionally)

This was the End of the Beginning and the Beginning of the End (for a whole empire – esp. for an empire in the West – but no-one foresaw the complete breakdown that was in store for the empire in the next 30 years or so

 
The Sad Tale of the Revolt of Procopius – the 9 Month Rise and Fall

Procopius, overlooked at Julian’s death for election to the emperor-ship, skulks about the East for a year, then suddenly re-appears in Constantinople, gathers a crowd, soldiers, and royal adherents (relatives of Constantine) (Sep 28 365)

He takes his new armies and begins to attack Valens

Old generals are called back into service from Constantius’ reign (a couple of years before), with one word, they bring the rebelling legions back to Valens and Valentinian (on more than one occasion) – Procopius goes into hiding again – is found this time after a few months and immediately beheaded (May 28, 366)

 
The Magic and Treason Trials

Valens and Valentinian are in a wild state – they prosecute relentlessly against 2 huge dangers to the empire – the dangers of unchecked magic and magical behavior – the dangers of treason – esp at Rome and Antioch (373 and other times)

The jails are filled – with Senators and longshoreman, high officials and farmers – thousands are executed

 
Cruelty/Accomplishments of Valens and Valentinian

Cruelty – Valentinian noted for coming up with even more clever and witty ways of saying “off with his head“

Accomplishments – new Universities at Rome and Constantinople, reduction of taxes in the East (Valens)

 

Bust of Valens (or Honorius) at the Capitoline Museum - Valens was the milder brother of Valentinian I - made emperor by his soldier brother, and Augustus over the East

Unhappy European Brown Bear - these were the kinds of bears Valentinian probably had consuming his prisoners for his own personal entertainment. The 2 bears he trained to attack and eat imperial convicts were named Innocence and Golden Crumb. Innocence was subsequently released into the wild after her years of work as a public servant. I wonder which province got the man-eating bear roaming about the hinterlands?

 
Gentle Innocence and Golden Crumb – The Famous Prisoner-Eating Bears of Valentinian
 
This from Gibbon:

After he became master of the world, he unfortunately forgot that, where no resistance can be made, no courage can be exerted; and instead of consulting the dictates of reason and magnanimity, he indulged the furious emotions of his temper, at a time when they were disgraceful to himself, and fatal to the defenceless objects of his displeasure. In the government of his household, or of his empire, slight, or even imaginary offences- a hasty word, a casual omission, an involuntary delay – were chastised by a sentence of immediate death.

The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, ” Strike off his head;” – “Burn him alive;” “Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires ;”(57) and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience.

The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty. (58) He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul.

Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea (Golden Crumb), could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bedchamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods.(59)

(DEF v.2, ch.25, p.973)

I wouldn’t want to be wandering the wood that had a free hungry bear accustomed to human flesh roaming about. But that’s just me.

 
 
 

William Warburton - a believer in the mystical - and a man whom Gibbon loved and hated at the same time

 
Gibbon’s Boys (#2) – The Philosopher-Bishop-Celebrity William Warburton
 
The Eye of the Hurricane of Mid-18th Century Controversy in All Britain – and Almost Utterly Forgotten Today
 
Gibbon has a love-hate relationship with William Warburton (1698-1779) and the “Warburtonian School” throughout volume 1 of his Decline and Fall. In a continual muttering buried deep in his footnotes Gibbon repeatedly expresses wonder at the irrationality of Warburton’s theories or uses him as an admitted expert in fields where he needs references (name-dropping) to back up his opinions/take/spin on certain subjects.

But who was this mysterious Warburton?

Wiki (in a typical maneuver, gathering most of its material from the public, non-copyrighted 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911 edition)) has a very Edwardian British twist to it and is mostly useless – it is a list of titles and appointments and Very Important People’s names that Warburton was associated with – just what you’d expect from a class-ridden society. His ideas are not very prominent – so we have had to look elsewhere (here is the Wiki for what its worth).

The Warburtonian School apparently was a sycophantic following, absolutely loyal and militant in its support of the outrageous, arrogant, and learned William Warburton. Warburton was known for defending wild opinions on extremely minute points with piles of evidence only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Examples include (from here – online – The Library of Literary Criticism of English and American Authors: 1730-1784 edited by Charles Wells Moulton) (reading it is quite a treat – all the reviewers are exasperated and almost speechless with irritation at Warburton’s wild and extremely long-winded reasoning):

the famous argument on the dating of the Book of Job in the Old Testament – carried out in a very public way (public pamphlets, lectures) and gathering adherents (and enemies) from the lowest classes to the King himself

the famous re-write of Shakespeare – where Warburton put out a REVISED edition of Shakespeare’s writing – he doesn’t propose minor changes – as an editor he arrogantly REWRITES sections to make them better – explaining that obviously Shakespeare truly meant it thus and so… etc.

His commentaries on Alexander Pope (Pope was a great friend of Warburton and left Warburton all his writings and his “copyrights” – Warburton produced a tortured essay on all Pope’s works, laboriously creating and destroying paradoxes in footnotes and asides that left critics gasping for breath. He elaborates for pages on inconsequential points.

Warburton’s Divine Legation asks the question Why do the Books of Moses in the Old Testament have no reference to an afterlife? His answer – on purpose – to highlight the afterlife itself for the unbelievers to come – another Warburtonian paradox on a small point which can never be settled by fact, only by rhetoric and the imagination

His Essay on Julian – in which he re-discovers the hidden motives and “real” causes of Julian’s opinions and actions

 
Gibbon uses small Warburtonian details to buttress up his points, but hates the imaginative, long-winded, irrational, ridiculously detailed “proofs” given to questions which can never be answered definitively. To Gibbon, Warburton is a circus-Rhetorician, a man capable of working a crowd into a frenzy, over items which matter not at all (although occasionally Warburton throws out brilliant theories which turn out to be correct, example – his proposing that Egyptian hieroglyphs were a proto-alphabet (DEF, v.1, ch.16, p.528, fn.32).

Some samples of Gibbon’s references:

 
On the Absence of an Afterlife in the Law of Moses – It Was Intentional To Confound the UNBelievers

It is incumbent on us to adore the mysterious dispensations of Providence,(57) when we discover that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is omitted in the law of Moses…
Fn 57
The right reverend author of the Divine Legation of Moses assigns a very curious reason for the omission, and most ingeniously retorts it on the unbelievers.

(DEF v.1, ch.15, p.465, fn 57)

 
On the the Ceremonies Involved in Becoming an Initiate into the Mysteries of Eleusis

As these ceremonies were performed in the depth of caverns and in the silence of the night, and as the inviolable secret of the mysteries was preserved by the discretion of the initiated, I shall not presume to describe the horrid sounds and fiery apparitions which were presented to the senses or the imagination of the credulous aspirant, till the visions of comfort and knowledge broke upon him in a blaze of celestial light.(25)

Fn 25
A dark and distant view of the terrors and joys of initiation is shown by Dion Chrysostom Themistius, Proclus, and Stobaeus. The learned author of the Divine Legation has exhibited their words (vol. i. p. 239, 247, 248, 280, edit. 1765) which he dexterously or forcibly applies to his own hypothesis.

(DEF v.2, ch.23, p.872, fn 25)

 
On the the Secret Intentions of Julian (Discovered 1400 Years Later)

As the Christians were firmly persuaded that a sentence of everlasting destruction had been pronounced against the whole fabric of the Mosaic law, the Imperial sophist would have converted the success of his undertaking into a specious argument against the faith of prophecy and the truth of revelation.(71)
Fn 71
Note 071
The secret intentions of Julian are revealed by the late bishop of Gloucester, the learned and dogmatic Warburton; who, with the authority of a theologian, prescribes the motives and conduct of the Supreme Being. The discourse entitled Julian (2nd edition, London, 1751) is strongly marked with all the peculiarities which are imputed to the Warburtonian school.

(DEF v.2, ch.23, p.889, fn 71)

 
One of Many Examples of Gibbon using Warburton as a Credible Source
 
Gibbon quotes from Warburton’s Divine Legation, Warburton’s most famous, or infamous of works. Gibbon both loves and despises it and Warburton. He quotes here, as Julian, from his deathbed, addresses his friends:

At the same time he (Julian) reproved the immoderate grief of the spectators; and conjured them not to disgrace, by unmanly tears, the fate of a prince who in a few moments would be united with heaven and with the stars. (98)
Footnote 98
This union of the human soul with the divine etherial substance of the universe is the ancient doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato, but it seems to exclude any personal or conscious immortality. See Warburton’s learned and rational observations. Divine Legation, vol. ii.

(DEF v.2, ch.24, p.945, fn 98)

Day 150 – Ken here (M)(2-8-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.960-970)

Cloudy and cold, and I’m feeling a little under the weather myself. But here I sit, unshaven and unshowered, dutifully reading my Gibbon and writing whatever pops into my head (basically). Better get going…

Chapter 25 continues with the middle and end of Jovian’s 7 month reign, and the election of a new emperor Valentinian (son of a Pannonian (modern day Serbian) farmer who made good in the Army and died a rich military Count over Africa and Britain. In a typically Roman Jovian dies a mysterious death en-route to Constantinople, rushing to the capital city to cement his unexpected new relationship with the world as world-ruler. The last Late Roman emperor, Valentinian, son of a farmer, a semi-literate soldier takes his place.

The Story
 
Sallust – The Man Who was Almost Emperor Twice

Historically, there could have been 2 men or 1 man – it’s unclear – Sallust (Flavius Sallustius OR Saturninus Secundus Salutius – probably the latter)

The friend, mentor, and universally-loved Stoic NeoPlatonist philosopher Sallust was offered the throne after Julian died when the generals were conferring in Persia (at the time he was Praetorian Prefect of the East)

Sallust was again offered the purple 7 months later after Jovian died, he refused a 2nd time and continued in the office of Praetorian Prefect of the East under Valentinian for some time

 
Jovian Proclaims Universal Toleration

With the exception of magic (?) Jovian proclaims universal toleration of all religions (ending actually the Julian-inspired persecution of Christianity, and ACTUALLY making Christianity the state religion again – after all the Emperor IS a Christian)

The Church and Monasteries may receive bequests from wills again, bishops may use the public post for free to get about the empire again, Christian property is free from taxes again – in other words back to status quo of the Constantine-era empire

Remember, at this point Christianity has been a state religion for only about 50 years or so, maybe a little under 1/2 the empire is Christian, still a minority – but once again, with imperial backing, Christianity is the religion of the upwardly mobile

 
Jovian Hurries from the Eastern Front to Constantinople, Dies On the Way

Jovian flies to Antioch (after he have away 5 provinces in the East to the Persians in a shameful, hurried Peace negotiation) to try and secure his power

He is surprised to find he has been accepted by the empire, he buries Julian, and hurriedly begins to make his way to Constantinople to consolidate his power with the populace/officials/Consistory in the capital

7 months into his reign (Feb 17, 364), Jovian is dead

Suspicious Death – due to mushrooms? Jovian found dead the next morning after heavy meal the night before – the suddenness of it, Jovian’s youth, and the lack of any inquisition into his death makes it seem (to Gibbon) to be a probable court-murder (poisoning?)

 
Vacancy for 10 days – Election of Valentinian – a career General

For 10 days (Feb 17 – Feb 26) there is no emperor

Valentinian – son of a Serbian farmer – is “nominated” by the high officers - special care is taken to present him to the army for acclamation for him to be acclaimed unanimously without competing “candidates”

This seems to be a 4th century (300’s) reflex (remembering the bad old times of the 200’s when emperors were made and unmade with speed and ease by the legions of the emperors bodyguard or frontier-guarding legions) - to be hyper-afraid of an interregnum and of civil war

Sallust (Praet. Pref. of the East) gives orders that no other high-ranking officer is to show his face on the day or days following Valentinian’s “scheduled, spontaneous” acclamation. The acclamation goes off without a hitch. Valentinian (and the Pannonian Dynasty) is off and running

TWO GREAT EVENTS just happened: 1) Valens (Valentinian’s brother) is made co-Augustus of the West by Valentinian – unknown to everyone else, THIS IS THE FINAL BREAK/SEPARATION of EAST and WEST (after this they are separate entities) and 2) Valentinian is the last emperor to have absolute sole dominion over both East and West, and to campaign above the Danube and over the Rhine – after Valentinian the empire goes through a rapid period of decline from which it never recovers. Valentinian is (in some ways) the last Late Roman Emperor (364-375)

 

Broken head of Valentinian I, wearing the diadem. Valentinian (364-375) was the last Roman emperor - the last to campaign above the Rhine/Danube, the last to hold the senior power over East AND West. After him, the empire rapidly declines and falls to pieces in the West.

Photograph of Horatio Alger, author of the voluminous 'Rags to Riches' series of pulp fiction which did much to perpetuate the American Dream of getting rich by 'pluck, luck, and virtue'. Alger's dream was played out over and over again in the Roman Army of the Late Empire - the Great Leveller of classes - where repeatedly, (in fact at the beginning of many dynasties) a man who was the son of barbarians or farmers became the ruler of the Roman World - major offices in the Army were open to ANY man of talent and ambition

 
The Roman Army and Horatio Alger
 
No, not death alone, the Roman Army of the Later Empire was the Great Leveler of Roman Society. Most of the Legions, their upper officers, and from there Military Governors/Generals (Counts) of provinces were open to ALL men (barbarian-born, farmers, grandsons of former slaves, etc). In fact, the more centralized, stable, and bureaucratic the government of the empire became during the 200’s and after Diocletian in the 300’s (i.e. the more totalitarian and class-ridden), the more open all posts in government were to all citizens of the empire, regardless of pedigree and class. In late Antique society classes were mostly fixed, but the army was class-blind (or at least class-myopic).

Like Horatio Alger and the “Rags to Riches” stories which a part and parcel of the American Dream and the mythos of being an American (success = “luck, pluck, and virtue”), hard work, luck and a clean life could lead to unimaginable riches by joining the Roman Legions of the 200’s and 300’s. Many changes of dynasty (where a new emperor was NOT a son/relative of the preceding emperor) involved a man whose origins were plebeian at best, and who gained fame and respectability through service in the Army.

Valentinian was the son of a military governor of Africa and Britain, but the military governor himself started out life as a farmer in the back country of Pannonia. He follows in the footsteps of the great Diocletian who started life out as a commoner in Illyria (interestingly near Pannonia – the Late Roman Balkans must have been a good place to breed Roman officers).

 
Very Tangential Interesting Note
 
Academic Forgeries or Always Check Your References
Mayes’ (almost completely) Fictional Non-Fiction Biography of Horatio Alger
I always find it interesting when authority remains unquestioned, and the “authority” is actually consciously fraudulent (example: the Augustan Histories, for Roman History in the troubled 3rd century which was an intentional comedic treatment of what would have been back then commonly-known recent history, but which has (unfortunately for us in the 21st century) become the ONLY remaining source of historical narrative for the 200’s

(For the complete article in Wiki on Horatio Alger (from which the following was taken) see here)

In 1928, Herbert R. Mayes published the spurious biography Alger: A Biography without a Hero. This pseudo-biographical novel presented itself as a biography of the well-known author, allegedly based on Alger’s diaries and secondary sources consulted by the author. However, in reality those diaries and secondary sources did not exist; Mayes simply made up anecdotes to fill in the gaps in his knowledge of Alger’s life. Those stories ranged from the merely speculative — for example, Mayes made Alger’s father into a stern, repressive personality who contributed to Alger’s semi-repressed homosexuality later in life — to the bizarre.

In the latter category, Mayes had his 26-year-old Alger run off to Paris rather than gratify his father with a job in the clergy. Later, in New York, the fictional Alger adopts a young Chinese boy named Wing and cares for him until Wing is conveniently killed by a runaway horse. Mayes said in 1972:

“If Alger ever kept a diary, I knew nothing about it. In any case, it was more fun to invent one. I had no letters ever written by Alger, which was fortunate. Again, it was more fun to make them up, as it was with letters presumably sent to Alger, none of which I had ever seen.”

Mayes’ fictional biography went practically unquestioned until the 1960s. In 1961, amateur Alger enthusiast Frank Gruber published Horatio Alger, Jr.: A Biography and Bibliography, challenging Mayes’ account, and this challenge was followed by Ralph D. Gardner’s similarly fact-based 1964 Horatio Alger, or the American Hero Era. (Ironically, these biographies were ill-received by many critics, who preferred Mayes-based works such as John Tebbel’s 1963 From Rags to Riches: Horatio Alger and the American Dream.)

In the 1970s, Mayes finally admitted the hoax, but statements and anecdotes from A Biography without a Hero continue to turn up in poorly-researched biographies even today. Reliable alternatives include Gary Scharnhorst’s Horatio Alger, Jr. (1980) and Carol Nackenoff’s The Fictional Republic: Horatio Alger and American Political Discourse (1994).

Book cover of Herbert Mayes' unauthorized (and largely fictitious biography) of Horatio Alger. Mayes freely imagined letters, journals, and interviews. It took over 30 years after it was published (and accepted by all as a definitive biography) to be exposed as a work of fiction - Mayes admitted to making up most of the documentary evidence himself. The moral: Question Authority, and Check It Out For Yourself Before You Believe

Day 147 – Ken here (F)(2-5-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.24, 25, pp.950-960)

The Story
 
Jovian’s Retreat to Nisibis

Persians do (or don’t – depending on your sources) give food to the Romans/help them over the Tigris after the Treaty is signed (Note: Ammianus Marcellinus – a primary historian for this time and a pagan and former friend of Julian is hostile to Jovian)

The army crosses the river in haste, many men lost to the current (more than in recent battles) – the army is still harassed by Arabs and Persian irregulars as they make their way back to Roman territory

 
Universal Outcry against the Treaty of Dura, Jovian hands over 5 Provinces

Jovian is announced to the world as new emperor

Treaty is downplayed at 1st, but news leaks out – the Roman world is outraged at his weakness in giving up the 5 provinces won by Galerius (Diocletian’s time 303 CE) from Persia

Nisibis – a Roman fortress which had never been taken is given over to the Persians – the huge city of Roman citizens loses all their property and possessions and are forced (by law of Jovian) to relocate to Amida and start over – huge changes in a short number of months – remember Julian set foot in Persian territory in May, Constantius died a little over a year and a half ago (August 363)

 
Julian’s Funeral

Julian’s body is brought to Tarsus – pagans lament his death, crowds of Christians jeer at every turn

 
Jovian and the Church

Jovian announces his Christian beliefs immediately, but at first doesn’t make his specific Christian leanings known

Jovian is mobbed by Christian sects all wanting official recognition

Jovian reverses Constantius stand, favors the Athanasian, Nicene sect

 

Nisibis - St Jacobs Church - ruins of Nisibis christian school - post Roman Christian culture

More Ruins in Nisibis - St Elia

Nisibis – given over without a Fight

The city of Nisibis has a long history – especially within the Persian Christian Church (Nestorian and Jacobite) which Christianized Asia and the Silk Caravan Route overland in the long centuries between the decline of Rome in the East (beginning in the late 300’s) and the rise of European trade and the merchant-prince-cities of the Mediterranean (the 1000’s and later).

The city actually had a Roman-Christian history after the Roman withdrawal. It had changed hands so many times in the last few centuries, no one suspected that this last hand-off (from Rome to Persia) would be the last – until the Gotterdammerung of Heraclius and Persian on the eve of the Muslim conquests of most of the Mediterranean world (early 600’s).

This from Wiki (here):

Nusaybin (Syriac: ܢܨܝܒܝܢ, Nṣibin, later Syriac ܨܘܒܐ, Ṣōbā, classical Nisibis) is a city in Mardin Province, southeastern Turkey populated by Turks, Kurds, Assyrian/Syriacs, Arabs.

It is the ancient Mesopotamian city, which Alexander’s successors refounded as Antiochia Mygdonia (Greek: Αντιόχεια της Μυγδονίας) and is mentioned for the first time in Polybius’ description of the march of Antiochus I against the Molon (Polybius, V, 51). Greek historian Plutarch suggested that the city was populated by Spartan descendants. The Syriac name for the town is Soba.[1] The Armenian name is Մծբին Mtsbin, and the Hebrew name is נציבין Netzivin”.

As early as 852 BC, Nisibis appeared in the Assyrian Eponym List as the seat of an Assyrian provincial governor named Shamash-Abua.

Like many other cities in the marches where Roman and Parthian powers confronted one another, Nisibis was often taken and retaken: it was captured by Lucullus after a long siege from the brother of Tigranes (Dion Cassius, xxxv, 6, 7); and captured again by Trajan in 115, for which he gained the name of Parthicus (ibid., LXVIII, 23), then lost and regained against the Jews during the Kitos War. Lost in 194, it was again conquered by Septimius Severus, who made it his headquarters and re-established a colony there (ibid., LXXV, 23). With the fresh energy of the new Sassanid dynasty, Shapur I conquered Nisibis, was driven out, and returned in the 260s. In 298, by a treaty with Narseh, the province of Nisibis was acquired by the Roman Empire.

In about the 1st century CE Netzivin was the home of Judah ben Bethera, who founded a famous yeshiva there.[3]
The Roman historian of the 4th century Ammianus Marcellinus gained his first practical experience of warfare as a young man under the governor at Nisibis, Ursicinus. From 360 to 5th century, Nisibis was the camp of Legio I Parthica. Because of its strategic importance on the Persian border Nisibis was heavily fortified. Ammianus lovingly calls Nisibis the “impregnable city” (urbs inexpugnabilis) and “bulwark of the provinces” (murus provinciarum).

In 363 Nisibis was ceded back to the Persians after the defeat of Julian. At that time the population of the town was forced by the Roman authorities to leave Nisibis and move to Amida. The townspeople tried to persuade Emperor Jovian that they were ready to defend their home against the Persians, but Iovianus allowed them only three days for the evacuation. Historian Ammianus Marcellinus was again an eyewitness of this sorrowful event. He condemns Emperor Jovian for giving up the fortified town without a fight. Marcellinus’ point-of-view is certainly in line with contemporary Roman public opinion.

Nisibis had a Christian bishop from 300, founded by Babu (died 309). War was begun again by Shapur II in 337, who besieged the city in 338, 346 and 350, when James, Babu’s successor, was its bishop. Nisibis was the home of Ephrem the Syrian, who remained until its surrender to the Persians by Jovian in 363.
 

Later, the bishop of Nisibis was the ecclesiastic metropolitan of the Province of Beit-Arbaye. In 410 it had six suffragan sees and as early as the middle of the 5th century was the most important episcopal see of the Persian Church after Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and many of its Nestorian or Jacobite bishops were renowned for their writings: Barsumas, Osee, Narses, Jesusyab, Ebed-Jesus.

The first theological, philosophical, and medical School of Nisibis, founded at the introduction of Christianity into the city by Assyrians of the Assyrian Church of the East, was closed when the province was ceded to the Persians. Ephrem the Syrian, a poet, commentator, preacher and defender of orthodoxy, joined the general exodus of Christians and reestablished the school on more securely Roman soil at Edessa.

In the 5th century the school became a center of Nestorian Christianity, and was closed down by Archbishop Cyrus in 489; the expelled masters and pupils withdrew once more to Nisibis, under the care of Barsumas, who had been trained at Edessa, under the patronage of Narses, who established the statutes of the new school. Those which have been discovered and published belong to Osee, the successor of Barsumas in the See of Nisibis, and bear the date 496; they must be substantially the same as those of 489. In 590 they were again modified. The monastery school was under a superior called Rabban (“master”), a title also given to the instructors. The administration was confided to a majordomo, who was steward, prefect of discipline, and librarian, but under the supervision of a council. Unlike the Jacobite schools, devoted chiefly to profane studies, the school of Nisibis was above all a school of theology. The two chief masters were the instructors in reading and in the interpretation of Holy Scripture, explained chiefly with the aid of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The free course of studies lasted three years, the students providing for their own support. During their sojourn at the university, masters and students led a monastic life under somewhat special conditions. The school had a tribunal and enjoyed the right of acquiring all sorts of property.

Its rich library possessed a most beautiful collection of Nestorian works; from its remains Ebed-Jesus, Bishop of Nisibis in the 14th century, composed his celebrated catalogue of ecclesiastical writers. The disorders and dissensions, which arose in the sixth century in the school of Nisibis, favoured the development of its rivals, especially that of Seleucia; however, it did not really begin to decline until after the foundation of the School of Baghdad (832). Among its literary celebrities mention should be made of its founder Narses; Abraham, his nephew and successor; Abraham of Kashgar, the restorer of monastic life; John; Babai the Elder.
Modern Nusaybin remains the site of two titular sees in the Roman Catholic Church, Nisibenus Chaldaeorum, and Nisibenus; the first seat is held by Jacques Ishaq, titular Archbishop, the second has been vacant since 1968.

Map of the Sassanid Empire - showing the 5 provinces back in Persian hands - Nisibis is in the upper left hand corner between the upper Tigris and Euphrates - when Rome USED to have its eastern border on the Tigris (after Galerius in 303) you can see HOW MUCH of north-eastern Persia used to be in Roman hands

Day 146 – Ken here (Th)(2-4-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.940-950)

When last we met, Julian was being harassed by the Persian army, deep in the center of the Persian kingdom, and his supplies had been disrupted to the point of being forced to retreat 200 miles north to friendly Roman territory. So far he has been almost completely victorious, and the campaign a success.

Frustrated (well, with an army of 60,000 barbarians and Romans, he isn’t exactly totally frustrated) by the ever-growing Persian forces gathering about him, Julian attempts to move upcountry, in a drive towards Kurdistan a hundred or so miles to the north. It is a tactical retreat to re-supply his legions in Roman territory.

But Julian will not live to see Roman territory again.

 
The Story
 
Julian’s Retreat

Julian is pursued by the Persian Royal Princes and the Persian general Maranes along the Tigris

At the battle of Maronga – Romans victorious – actually, except for Roman de-moralization, and the increasing lack of supplies, the Romans win all engagements and successfully put off and slaughter the armies sent against them by Sapor – Sapor is actually losing the will to keep on attacking

The climate (hot and dry – an Assyrian summer) is not the best for the Germans (used to the cold and wet of the forests of Germany)

 
Julian’s Death

In a massive attack, the Persians hit the retreating Roman army again. Julian (as was his custom) was in the front of the action, and ends up (Theory 1 – Gibbon’s theory) being hit a javelin which pierces his liver. He is carried off. The Romans hear of it and far from despairing, end up winning the battle – taking the 2 generals Meranes and Nahordates and 50 satraps (nobles) captive (Theory 2 – Christian Theory) – Julian is wounded by a Christian soldier or a barbarian, not by a Persian.

Julian revives at camp, asks to be taken back to the battle, but all see he is to die in a matter of hours

Julian accepts death gladly as a philosopher, sees friends off, gives an eloquent speech (which Gibbon suspects he wrote out and memorized beforehand – Julian was after all an accomplished orator, and it WAS HIS deathbed), then debates with his friends on the immortality of the soul and dies around midnight in mid-argument. His mythical last words “You have conquered me Galilean” are never spoken except in a vicious Bishop’s fevered imagination a century later – Gibbon does not even dignify the story with a mention – even in a footnote (6-26-363)

Julian expressly names no successor, and leaves the choice to the Army to decide

Julian dies at 32 years of age, having reigned as Augustus 1 year and 8 months. He casts a long shadow for such a short life, and short reign

 
Election of new emperor Jovian

This is the first time since Diocletian’s accession in 285 (80 years previous) that the Roman Empire has not had a smooth accession – all worry that civil war is a real possibility – but luckily the army is buried deep in enemy territory and the decision has to be made swiftly

The next morning, various groups jockey for position among the top officers – Sallust is everyone’s choice, but he refuses – no one seems to have a clear majority

The decision is made to get out of Persia and settle matters back in the Empire when (by chance) the first of the Personal Guards of Julian, Jovian, is hailed by a group of legionnaires as Caesar and Augustus, the rest take up the chant, and by accident and chance Jovian is made Augustus to his great surprise – although he comes from a noble family and his father Count Varrones is well-respected in the Empire

 
Continued Retreat and The Shameful Peace Treaty of Dura

Jovian continues to retreat - 1st night – Samara, then Carche, then the infamous Dura

The army begs him to let them cross the correct side of the Tigris (ie they will have to cross anyways at some point – why not now?). Jovian (and senior officers) point out that the enemy is thick all over the far bank and it really doesnt help them much – but they are desperate – they waste 4 days building a bridge

Sapor continues to harass them (but to no avail) – eventually Sapor sends his highest official to negotiate a peace, the soldiers fall all over it like drowning men clutching a plank and Jovian is forced to talk with the ambassadors

The ambassadors waste 4 more days in negotiations (this makes 8 days the army effectively stopped). Sapor does this knowingly, seeing that their supplies are gone. With no food now, Jovian is forced to accept any terms

The Treaty of Dura – Rome loses the 5 provinces beyond the Tigris, loses the unconquered fortress of Nisibis, also Singara, and gives the Kingdom of Armenia over to Persia forever and concludes a 30 years cease-fire (July 363)

Ammianus Marcellinus, friend and historian of Julian and his times thinks if Jovian had only kept on moving, the entire army could have been safely back in Roman territory with no Treaty of Dura – in fact, the whole Roman World denigrates Jovian for giving up the 5 provinces – not a providential way to start a reign

Photo of a severe Somerset Maugham (1934) - the writer of dozens of very good novels and the re-teller (and man-responsible-for-making-famous) of the fable of death and the appointment at Samara. Like Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces, the story of the inevitability of one's fate is a recurrent theme in our World Literature. Julian (strangely) met death near Samara July 363

 
Julian’s Appointment at Samara
No one knows where Julian’s last battle was exactly, but it most probably would’ve been a few miles south of the town of Samara – an obscure village north of Ctesiphon (which is north of Baghdad, a city which would not be founded for another 300 years (762 CE)). There is an old story, apparently first recorded in the Babylonian Talmud (compiled during the Jewish Babylonian Captivity of the 500’s, 400’s BCE). It is also a fable in Old Arabic, except the city of Baghdad is most probably Susa (the ancient Persian capital near the estuaries of the Tigris and the Euphrates on the Persian gulf – maybe a hundred miles south of Samara, which makes the night ride more surprising). It concernsa a man trying to escape his own death, and how useless it is to try and avoid one’s fate.

The story about the inevitability of fate and death is weirdly coincidental considering Julian barely escaped death numerous times in his life (assassination, execution, etc) and travelled half-way across the world to meet death in a small village in the midst of the largest army of its time, at the height of his powers/popularity, at a young (32 years old) age. The place is ironic at best, the more so because Julian was very superstitious, constantly consulting oracles, believing in fate, and trusting in divine plans. Julian, however, was NOT AFRAID of death, but embraced it like a philosopher at the end.

Here is Somerset Maugham’s translation/version of the story

There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled me. She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me. The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threating getsture to my servant when you saw him this morning? That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.

The story as told in the Talmud (from here, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, a portion of a paper which appeared in Thalia: Studies in Literary Humor, Vol. 18, March 1999, 31-41)

The following story, which we may call “Appointment in Luz,” demonstrates that an individual cannot escape his or her destiny and must inevitably die. The Angel of Death is depicted as simply performing a necessary task, and doing it any way he can.

(the next 2 paragraphs are from the Babylonian Talmud)

There were two Cushites that attended on King Solomon, Elichoreph and Achiyah, sons of Shisha, who were scribes of Solomon.

One day, Solomon noticed that the Angel of Death looked sad. Solomon asked him: Why are you sad? He replied: Because they have demanded from me the two Cushites that dwell here. Solomon had demons take them to the city of Luz [a legendary city where no one dies]. However, as soon as they reached the gates of Luz, they died. The next day, Solomon noticed that the Angel of Death was happy. He asked him: Why are you so happy? He replied: Because you sent them to the very place where they were supposed to die (Sukkah 53a).

Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived (according to I Kings 3:12), discovered himself outsmarted by Satan. There are obvious
similarities here to the well known “Appointment in Samarra” story, a retelling of which was made famous by W. Somerset Maugham in his play Sheppey. Some scholars believe that the origin of the Maugham tale is “When Death Came to Baghdad,” a ninth century Arabian Sufi story in Fudail ibn Ayad’s Hikayat-I-Naqshia. This similar story in the Talmud is several hundred years older.

Maugham’s version can be found online (here); a far older version is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 53a – this from footnotes in Wiki (here) for the article on John O’Hara’s 1933 novel Appointment in Samara

Photograph of John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States. There are a number of parallels between Julian and JFK (although JFK was a Catholic and probably would not have appreciated Julian's Hellenistic religious beliefs) - both were considered long-shots when going for office, both were (for parts of the population) the youthful embodiment of hope and change and a new era, both died young, and both were killed under mysterious circumstances

 
Julian’s Death – As Mysterious as John F. Kennedy’s – Conspiracy Theories and an Occasion for Christian Gloating
There are many conflicting accounts of how Julian died – Gibbon chooses Ammianus Marcellinus’ version (who was there), Libanius (his rich, suave, philosopher friend from Antioch) gives another account. Gregory of Cappadocia, a contemporary of Julian and a neighbor/jailor during his captivity in his youth in Cappadocia (the future St. George of England) gives another account, the Christian version, which actually mixes up the death of Alexander Severus (a century earlier) with Julian’s death. Libanius is the first to accuse a fellow-Roman soldier of regicide, George gives a ridiculous story of Julian despising his own men and being killed for it (or, being killed by a barbarian jester – but that’s a story from a century earlier – from the Augustan Histories – the same Mad Magazine Comedy History that gives so many unreliable and contradictory stories of the troubles years of the 200’s).
 
 
A Summary of the different version is given here (University of Pennsylvania Course Page – How Did Julian Die?).
 
 
Gregory’s Version (from the above)
 

Others, however, tell some such story as this respecting his end: that he had gone up upon a lofty hill to take a view of his army and ascertain how much was left him for carrying on the war; and that when he saw the number considerable and superior to his expectation, he exclaimed, “What a dreadful thing if we shall bring back all these fellows to the land of the Romans!” as though he begrudged them a safe return. Whereupon one of his officers, being indignant and not able to repress his rage, ran him through the bowels, without caring for his own life.

Others tell that the deed was done by a barbarian jester, such as follow the camp, “for the purpose of driving away ill humour and for amusing the men when they are drinking.”

(This tale about the jester is borrowed from Lampridius, who gives it as one of the many current respecting the death of Alexander Severus. The “Historia Augusta,” a recent compilation, was then in everybody’s hands)

 
 
Libanius’ Version (from the above)
 

Who was the one that killed him, does anyone desire to hear? His name I know not, but that he who killed him was not an enemy there is a clear proof, namely, that none of the opposite side received rewards for the fatal blow, although the Persian king summoned by public proclamation the slayer to come forward and receive reward, and it was in his power if he did come forward to gain great things. And yet no one from desire of the rewards boasted of the deed; and, truly, we ought to be very thankful to the enemy that they did not arrogate to themselves the glory of things they had not done, but gave it to us to look for the murderer amongst ourselves. For those persons to whom his being in life was no advantage (these were they who lived not according to the laws) had previously plotted against him, and then, profiting by the occasion, effected their purpose; their natural wickedness compelling them to it, which had no liberty to exert itself under his government; and, above all, the fact that the gods were receiving due honour, the very opposite thing to what they strove for. And what Thucydides remarks concerning Pericles, that he showed, by his death, how important a man he was to the state; the same thing, one may say, with respect to this emperor; for though all other things remained the same as they had been before—-the men, the arms, the officers, the legions, the captives, the pay, the rations—-yet in a single change, that regarding the sovereign, everything was shipwrecked. …
…for what a darkness has returned through the murder of our emperor!

Day 145 – Ken here (W)(2-3-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.930-940)

It’s a beautiful day outside, sunny and warm, and once again I’m inside living with the emperor Julian. Reading Vidal’s Julian at the same time as Gibbon’s Julian (and Julian himself – texts online) is kind of strange and a little dizzying, like seeing double (or triple) images of the object at once. But its gratifying to read an account in one book and be led through it in another, and read Julian’s original account in one of his texts online. Julian’s an interesting guy (heavy understatement there).

We continue Chapter 24 with a slower and slower pace. Imagine a scene in the cinema where the closer we get to the pivotal action sequence, the slower the slow-motion effects become – Gibbon is nothing if not dramatic.

With regularity (maybe once every 20 pages or so) we feel ourselves set up by his melodious confidence-inducing prose and then suddenly surprised by lightning-quick denouements or resolutions that leave you breathless (and sometimes a little chagrined at being led-on so easily again). The previous 10 page section documented maybe 30 days, this 10 page section documents maybe 10 days, the next will document only a few days, then a couple of hours.

Right now, Julian is marching and winning and losing in Persia – things look awkward, but not desperate – but (unknown to everyone – except maybe his murderer) Julian has only a few days left to live.

(Note: There is nothing easier than being an armchair historian 1700 years after the fact (meaning me, not Gibbon) – but that’s what history is for – trying to figure out what it all REALLY MEANT. So here goes…)

The Story
 
Julian Transports Fleet to Tigris

Julian arrives near Ctesiphon and needs to transport the fleet to the Tigris

Julian knows his history and uses an old canal dug by Trajan 300 years earlier, redigs it, and moves the fleet

 
Battle of Ctesiphon

Overview of (363) from Wiki (here – there are 5 of them – 165, 198, 363, 637, 1915 – what a LONG HISTORY for ONE PLACE – Iran/Iraq IS the crossroads of the East and West)

Julian arrives before the ruins of the former HUGE Alexandrian capital city of Seleucus (600 years before), now a small greek-speaking suburb called Coche of the new Persian city of Ctesiphon (the winter capital of the Persian monarchy)

Fatal Mistake #1? With a wide river, steep banks, and heavy fortifications (like attacking the Death Star in Star Wars), Julian launches a lightning attack on the bank in the dead of night, and takes it, causes a huge retreat in the Persian forces and runs the Persians all the way into Ctesiphon (and behind) the walls of Ctesiphon – the gates of Ctesiphon are open, but a wounded general (Victor) cautions not to throw all into a last assault – so the Romans wait. (May 363)

Unbeknownst to anyone involved – this is the high-water mark of the whole campaign (May 363)

 
Julian burns Fleet, is Betrayed, Wanders Looking for Sapor

Fatal Mistake #2? The Sapor and the Persians sue for peace under any terms (after all one of their capitals is almost lost and the largest army in the world (at the time) is roaming FREELY in the CENTER of their country) – Julian keeps the negotiations secret and refuses all overtures to a cease-fire -shades of madness and over-weaning pride (hubris ).

Ctesiphon is very difficult to attack, once the gates are closed, Julian decides (a la Alexander the Great and Darius)(Julian fancies himself something like Alexander) to bring the fight to the inland part of the empire and knock Sapor to his knees

Two Generals argue and a King reneges and so Julian’s army is not reinforced with fresh forces from the North for an assault on the Persian King (Sebastian, Procopius, and the Armenian King Arsaces Tiranus (the king betrays the Romans, Julian again – as he had betrayed Constantius)

Fatal Mistake #3? Julian burns his vast fleet – Gibbon discusses this for almost 2 pages – why is it important? It marks the high-water mark of Julian’s successes, seems another act of hubris (overweaning pride – which gives the whole story of Julian the character of a Greek tragedy), and foreshadows the huge Roman losses in Mesopotamia in just a few days – Christian Bishops acting as armchair military “historians” delight in marking these acts as a kind of divine self-destructive insanity brought on by God to punish the apostate Julian – Gibbon repeatedly denigrates the accuracy of the Christian historians and their otherworldly historical theories.

Fatal Mistake #4? A full regiment of Persians and a Persian noble “desert” to the Romans – they turn out to be spies and mis-informants. They lead the Romans on a wild goose chase through the deserts around Baghdad/Ctesiphon. Eventually they are discovered, but only after provisions start to run low, and the army of 60,000 is getting sick and hungry in the swamps and deserts and burnt lands of the Persian heartland.

 
Julian Decides to Retreat to the North and the Kurds (former Corduene Satrapy of Persia)

Losing supplies daily, and with the Persians burning and retreating (like the Russians before Napoleon), and with the betrayal of the renegade Persian nobleman, Julian has no provisions, and feels lost

Julian – greatly dissatisfied, along with his dissatisfied legions – resolves to retreat back up North to the Roman client kingdom of Corduene (the Kurds of Kurdistan) and re-group

The whole campaign – from passing the Chaboras river (into Persian territory) through the complete victory at Ctesiphon, the wandering in the burnt-out farmland, etc has only taken 70 days. It is an amazingly fast conquest – amazingly Alexander-The-Great-like. Had Julian lived, would the Persian empire have endured?

 

Painting of Napoleons Retreat from Moscow - Theodore Gericault - The Russians fought, but burnt and retreated before the invasion of the French Empire under Napoleon in the early 1800's. In the same way the Persians burnt and retreated before Julian in 363 as Julian marched through the center of the Persian Empire

 
Quotable Gibbon: On Scorched-Earth Policy
 
In a very English-Western European way, Gibbon characterizes the 2 different strategies for a successful scorched-earth policy (a scorched earth policy is a situation where an invading army that expects/needs to live off the agricultural/industrial production of the country being invaded is thwarted by the destruction of farmland/machinery/cities by the inhabitants of the country being invaded – the inhabitants burn/scorch and retreat before the invading army, offering little resistanc – and relying on an exhaustion of supplies to defeat the invaders rather than direct confrontation – example: Both Napoleon and Hitler when invading Russia).

His analysis – a freedom-loving, non-totalitarian people do it for love of country (read: England or the West), or by fiat an a centralized, “fascist” state (read: the Orient)

The appearance of the hostile country was far more inviting. The extensive region that lies between the river Tigris and the mountains of Media was filled with villages and towns; and the fertile soils for the most part, was in a very improved state of cultivation. Julian might expect that a conqueror who possessed the two forcible instruments of persuasion, steel and gold, would easily procure a plentiful subsistence from the fears or avarice of the natives.

But on the approach of the Romans this rich and smiling prospect was instantly blasted. Wherever they moved, the inhabitants deserted the open villages and took shelter in the fortified towns; the cattle was driven away; the grass and ripe corn were consumed with fire; and, as soon as the flames had subsided which interrupted the march of Julian, he beheld the melancholy face of a smoking and naked desert. This desperate but effectual method of defence can only be executed by the enthusiasm of a people who prefer their independence to their property; or by the rigour of an arbitrary government, which consults the public safety without submitting to their inclinations the liberty of choice.

(DEF v.2, ch.24, p.939)

Another (famous) painting of Napoleon's Retreat from Moscow by Theodore Gericault - the Russian steppes destroyed the French Imperial Army just as effectively as the burnt desert did Julian's legions 1500 years before

Day 144 – Ken here (T)(2-2-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.920-930)

The Story
 
Julian’s Persian Campaign
 
Preparations and March Through Outer Mesopotamia

Military Preparations – this is to be a significant invasion, and an answer to the Persian King Sapor’s levelling of the Roman fortress at Amida the year before – 65,000 men and 1,100 ships (for the Euphrates), 1,100 flat bottomed boats (for temporary bridges and re-supplying the army)

Julian prepares great stores, prohibits wine

Julian crosses the Chaboras at Circesium (where it enters the Euphrates) and leaves Roman Mesopotamia and enters the Kingdom of Persia – he gives a speech, burns the boats that were the bridge (signalling his intent to conquer, and not just harass and retreat). Leaves 4.000 men (to bring total force up to 12,000 men) at Circesium to guard rear and protect against Arab marauders(4-7-363)

Julian marches over Mesopotamian desert – takes the Arab town of Annah, resettles inhabitants in a town in Syria

Marches 300 miles in 15 days (lightning strike) and comes before the fortress walls of Macepracta (it is 400 miles from Macepracta to Basra where the Tigris and Euphrates join to empty into the Persian Gulf)

Gibbon gives a page-long description of Assyria (Mesopotamia) modern central Iraq, Iran – mainly palm trees, canals, lack of fig trees, grape, and olive, incredible wealth in grain (3 harvests per year) – Gibbon estimates inflow of taxes to Persian at 1.2 million pounds sterling (1780’s) – which would be approximately 6.2 billion US$ 2009 (or 138,000 lbs gold)

 
March Through Assyria

Julian invades Assyria (May 363)

Julian lays siege to and takes and levels the great Persian fortress of Perisabor (50 miles from Ctesiphon – Persian Capital)

Julian lays siege to and takes the fortress of Maogamalcha by mining underneath and coming up through the middle of the city-fortress. He utterly destroys it.

 
Julian’s Character

He is severe with cowardice or retreat, rewards valor, but surprisingly allow unmitigated sacking and pillaging

Map of Middle East showing the Chaboras (Khabour) river, the boundary between Roman Mesopotamia and Persian Assyria

 

Picture of the Lower Chaboras (modern Khabour) river in Iran - showing the sandy low desert through which the river runs before emptying into the Euphrates. This was the highly contested frontier between 2 of the greatest powers of the Late Antique World - Rome and Persia. Julian crossed it in May 363, burned his bridges (literally) and irretrievably began his massive invasion and conquest of Persia

 

 
Quotable Gibbon – Gibbon Gets a Little Cranky in Chapter 24
 
Quotable Gibbon – Gibbon Correcting Ammianus Marcellinus and/or Julian
Specific awards were given for specific actions in the Army of the Repbulic 400 years before Julian’s time. Gibbon remarks on a very small detail in a text of Ammianus when commenting on Julian’s rewards/punishments for his own soldiers. Apparently someone – either Ammianus or Julian were not reading their Republican history very thoroughly…

The two sieges allowed him some remarkable opportunities of signalising his personal valour, which, in the improved state of the military art, can seldom be exerted by a prudent general. The emperor stood before the citadel of Perisabor, insensible of his extreme danger, and encouraged his troops to burst open the gates of iron, till he was almost overwhelmed under a cloud of missile weapons and huge stones that were directed against his person. As he examined the exterior fortifications of Maogamalcha, two Persians, devoting themselves for their country, suddenly rushed upon him with drawn scimitars: the emperor dexterously received their blows on his uplifted shield; and, with a steady and well-aimed thrust, laid one of his adversaries dead at his feet. The esteem of a prince who possesses the virtues which he approves is the noblest recompense of a deserving subject; and the authority which Julian derived from his personal merit enabled him to revive and enforce the rigour of ancient discipline. He punished with death, or ignominy, the misbehaviour of three troops of horse, who, in a skirmish with the Surenas, had lost their honour and one of their standards: and he distinguished with obsidional crowns the valour of the foremost soldiers who had ascended into the city of Maogamalcha

(DEF v.2, ch.24, p.930)

and this from the footnote

Obsidionalibus coronis donati. Ammian. xxiv. 4. Either Julian or his historian were unskilful antiquaries. He should have given mural crowns. The obsidional were the reward of a general who had delivered a besieged city (Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. v. 6).

(DEF v.2, ch.24, p.930, fn. 62)

Gibbon is quite right.

 
Quotable Gibbon – Gibbon Commenting on Those Who Value Things Over People

Yet these wanton ravages need not excite in our breasts any vehement emotions of pity or resentment. A simple, naked statue, finished by the hand of a Grecian artist, is of more genuine value than all these rude and costly monuments of barbaric labour; and, if we are more deeply affected by the ruin of a palace than by the conflagration of a cottage, our humanity must have formed a very erroneous estimate of the miseries of human life

(DEF v.2, ch.24, p.929)

Gibbon goes to comment in a footnote on the passage above

The operations of the Assyrian war are circumstantially related by Ammianus (xxiv. 2, 3, 4, 5), Libanius (Orat. Parent. c. 112-123, p. 335-347), Zosimus (1. iii. [c. 18] p. 168-180), and Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. iv. p. 113, 144). The ‘military’ criticisms of the saint are devoutly copied by Tillemont, his faithful slave.

(DEF v.2, ch.24, p.929, fn. 57)

Tillemont his slave? It was good that Tillemont was approximately 90 years dead at the time Gibbon wrote this, as I’m sure he would have been called to defend himself in a duel had Tillemont read this heavy sarcasm in a published work. But then again, Tillemont was French, and over-the-top critical rhetoric was second nature to his nationality and his career (historian).

 
Quotable Gibbon – Gibbon Commenting on Those Who Have Spent Too Much Time Studying Their Favorite Subject

This from the main text:

The face of the country was interspersed with groves of innumerable palm-trees, and the diligent natives celebrated, either in verse or prose, the three hundred and sixty uses to which the trunk, the branches, the leaves, the juice, and the fruit were skilfully applied.

(DEF, v.2, ch.24, p.925)
 

and buried in the footnote – commenting on the palm trees – a plaintive plea for moderation from a man who tracked down every reference (Gibbon on the fervor of the botanist Kaempfer)

The learned Kaempfer, as a botanist, an antiquary, and a traveller, has exhausted (Amoenitat. Exoticae, Fascicul. iv. p. 660-764) the whole subject of palm-trees.

(DEF, v.2, ch.24, p.925, fn.55)

(of course, historians or bloggers obsessed with Late Roman History are excepted)

 

Tillemont - History of the Emperors - Title Page - Tillemont was a French Historian working at the end of the 1600's, one of the first to critically analyze texts and manuscripts and write histories of the Late Empire and the early Church - Gibbon loved and hated him

 
Gibbon’s Boys (#1) the Indefatigable Historian Loius Sebastien Tillemont

This from Wiki (here )

Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont (30 November 1637 – 10 January 1698) was a French ecclesiastical historian.
He was born in Paris into a wealthy Jansenist family, and was educated at the Petites écoles of Port-Royal, where his historical interests were formed and encouraged. At the age of twenty, he began his two monumental works, the Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles and the Histoire des empereurs et autres princes qui ont régné pendant les six premiers siècles de l’Église. The first is a history of the first six centuries of the Christian Church; the second is a history of the Roman emperors during the same period.
Tillemont became a priest at the age of thirty-nine and settled at Port-Royal. When Port-Royal was dissolved in 1679, he moved to his family estate at Tillemont, where he spent the rest of his life, pursuing his historical work with single-minded devotion. His Histoire began to issue from the press in 1690 and his Mémoires in 1693, though the publication of both works was not completed until after his death.
Tillemont is cited frequently by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. His works were among the first to provide critical surveys of the full range of source material. His prose style is considered dry, but he had a reputation for accuracy, detail and conscientiousness. His work was attacked on a large scale by Honoratus a Sancta Maria in his Réflexions sur les règles et l’usage de la critique, three volumes (1712-1720).
(mainly from “Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont”. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913)

Day 143 – Ken here (M)(2-1-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.910-920)

A short day – we continue in chapter 23 – prepare for war with Persia. Julian wars with the giddy, changeable Antiochenes, and loses.

The Story
 
Julian and Antioch, Preparing for the Persian War

Julian resolves to attack Persia (362)

Julian leaves Constantinople, arrives at Antioch 8 months after Constantius dies and he took the sole emperorship (8-362)

Sapor sends ambassadors to sue for peace – Julian responds by suggesting they meet when he takes Ctesiphon

Julian arrives at uber-Christian Antioch – Gibbon gvies a brief discussion of the Antiochene character – “licentious and soft” – rich, passionate, sensual, given to spectacle and pleasure, and insanely zealous in matters spiritual

Antiochenes complain the apostate Julian carries famine with him as he marches from Constantinople to Antioch – famine hits Antioch, Julian arranges for grain to be diverted from Egypt to Antioch and sold at a low price – he also fixes grain prices (always a bad idea – Nixon, Diocletian, Julian found the same thing: fixing prices is counter-productive) grain speculators buy all the grain up – scarcity worsens – Antioch openly snubs and satirizes Julian, his paganism, his governmental policies and his beard

Julian arrests the entire Senate for a day (most emperors would have allowed his Gaulish troops to sack the city for him – example: Theodosius slaughtering the inhabitants of Thessalonica in 390 (30 years from now))

Julian’s reaction: to write and publicly post an essay satirizing the Antiochenes and himself – called the Beard-Hater (Misopgon)(see previous post) – Julian’s a gentleman and a scholar – literally

 
Libanius

Libanius (314-390) orator of Antioch, famous teacher, famous friend of Julian – main character in Gore Vidal’s Julian

Gibbon’s take on Julian: “voluminous writings… are the vain and idle compositions of an orator who cultivated the science of words – the productions of a recluse student”

 
Julian marches to the Euphrates – the Persian War Starts

Julian leaves Antioch in disgust (3-5-363)

Rapidly moves across the Fertile Crescent, makes “landfall” on the Persian frontier at Carrhae

Counts on (with a lack of success) considerable Armenian support from the King of Armenia – Gibbon notes problems with that: Armenian King Arsaces Tiranus is weak, he was very close to Constantius (was wife to woman who had been betrothed to Constans), was fervently Christian (Armenians are absolutely dedicated to their church), and was descended from the Parthian Arsacides. He wasn’t too interested in helping

18th cent. French Woodcut of Libanius the Orator (middle 300's) - great friend of Julian, wordy, self-involved windbag to Gibbon, key character in Vidal's novel Julian, major source of historical material to us

 
Sample of Libanius
Libanius (314-369) was a great friend of Julian, an accomplished orator, a famous citizen of Gibbon’s hated, effeminate Antioch, and a major character in the Gore Vidal novel Julian. Of course, our pleasure in his work is only as good as the english version of it, and I’m sure most of the poetry and power has been lost in translation – both translating the literal words, and translating from Late Roman 4th century culture to that of the 20th century. Libanius seems wordy and long, and this speech was made to be spoken and not read, but it is a civilized and elegant composition (comparing it to the style of yesterday’s John Chrysostom and his sermon against the Jews which sounds a little bit like an elementary school reading exercise). Here Libanius gives Julian’s Eulogy and recounts his life, this if an incident from when he was advancing on Constantius on the point of civil war after he had been acclaimed by the legions against his will (from an online translation at Tertullian.org here)

Rushing thence like a torrent, mastering all that come in his way, ever growing in numbers, seizing upon the bridges, surprising his opponents in their sleep, feigning to attack them in a different quarter, but approaching them in the rear, making them expect something different and attempt things in vain; making use of the land, but when the rivers were not watched, sailing down them with a small party whenever it was possible; leaving the guards on the frontiers undisturbed, but taking possession of the towns; effecting all he had proposed through persuasion, through force, through stratagem.

Such, for instance, was the following fact:—-Having equipped his men in the armour of the soldiers whom he had captured, he sent them against a certain well fortified town; the people thought those approaching to be their own men, and opening their gates admitted the enemy. But the most pleasing thing of all was that—-having seized beforehand on the beautiful Italy, and having also possessed himself in advance of the Italians, those excellent soldiers, |157 and their numerous and strong cities, and a territory sufficient for a great empire—-on no one occasion was he laid under the necessity of fighting and bloodshed, but the mere opinion of him sufficed, with the news of the coming of the sovereign. Of mighty service also to his cause were the letters of that coward and traitor, with which he called on the Barbarians.

Thus making his way by water and by land, through cities opened to him, and through opened camps; enumerating his labours in those noble manifestoes 45 which exasperated the hearer against the one emperor, and gained him over to the other, and this too when he was bringing a very inconsiderable part of his army with him. Yet the Macedonians revolted in his favour, as did also Greece, which hailed the moment for which she was praying in silence and without an altar—-for there was none.

Opened was the temple of Minerva and the temples of the other gods, the emperor in person opening them, and honouring them with gifts, and himself offering sacrifice and exhorting others to do the like. And knowing that the gods had been brought to judgment before the Athenians, he condescended to give in a justification of his own conduct; and he, the sovereign, appointed the people of Erechtheus for his judges—-sending them his defence in writing. For he held it to be the privilege of a tyrant not to be judged, but of a lawful sovereign to give the reasons for his actions.

(Libanius, ” Julian the Emperor” (1888). Monody: Funeral Oration for Julian)

Day 140 – Ken here (F)(1-29-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.900-910)

We finish chapter 23 today with miscellaneous tangents on George of Cappadocia (who also happens to be St George of England – and whom gibbon has nothing but scorn for), and a short review (again) of Julian and Athanasius and the riots in the city of Alexandria. Chapter 24 starts out with a short review of Julian’s Caesars – a long list of faults and virtues of the preceding 3 centuries of emperors – Gibbon is very fond of it. It is embedded, in a kind of context-less way, like a short essay at the beginning of the chapter.

The Story
 
George of Cappadocia (St George) – Gibbon Hates Him

Cappadocia is in the center of Turkey (Asia Minor) – apparently lots of famous ecclesiastical Georges came out of Asia Minor – this George is one of the most famous

Gibbon hates this Bishop George – he builds up this long diatribe against him, showing him to be amoral, and reveals in the end that this George of Cappadocia is actually the (semi-mythical) St. George of England (actually written very well (end of chapter 23)

George, son of a fuller, is a nouveau-riche government bacon supplier. He is a “parasite”, a “sycophant”, who lies and flatters his way into imperial favor

George eventually becomes Bishop of Alexandria (by attaching himself to the imperial Arian party – a huge deal – Alexandria is one of the 4 great cities of the empire), and manages to get the Egyptians to hate him by confiscating taxes, enriching himself enormously

Eventually, Athanasius manages to get back his post as Bishop of Alexandria, George is deposed, and imprisoned, and killed. The Egyptians now turn again and consider him a martyr and a saint

Over time (see below) George is mixed up with dragons and magicians and eventually becomes the familiar Saint George of England – Gibbon is almost enraptured as he reveals the sordid details of Britain’s own St. George.

 
Julian, Athanasius, and the Riots of Alexandria

Athanasius is re-elected after George is dethroned, imprisoned

Julian responds by demanding Athanasius’ exile from Egypt – his sentence is not carried out immediately (the Egyptians LOVE Athanasius)

Julian demands it again – the Prefect over Egypt begins his persecution of Athanasius – Athanasius begins his Star-Wars-Obi-Wan-Kenobi routine of living in the shadows, but remaining a major power in the church, attending the major Councils of the Church, etc incognito.

 
Julian’s Caesars – A Laundry List of Imperial Vices and Virtues or an Emperor Reality Show

Julian writes a long poem (among his many works in the short period he was Caesar, Augustus), during his nights after doing all his governmental, administrative, military work

Poem delineates all the faults, virtues of each emperor -then brings up the final 6 who are the best of the best – Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Constantine – with the winner: Marcus Aurelius

Painting of Saint George Killing the Dragon by Gustave Moreau. Gibbon hates Saint George (George of Cappadocia) and isnt ashamed to write about it (even though George IS the patron saint of his own country - England)

 
The Scoundrel Saint George of England
Saint George – England’s patron saint has a lurid history – this per Gibbon (sorry for the long quote – this is Inimitably Gibbon – especially note the SURPRISE ENDING)

George, from his parents or his education, surnamed the Cappadocian, was born at Epiphania in Cilicia, in a fuller’s shop. From this obscure and servile origin he raised himself by the talents of a parasite; and the patrons whom he assiduously flattered procured for their worthless dependent a lucrative commission, or contract, to supply the army with bacon. His employment was mean; he rendered it infamous. He accumulated wealth by the basest arts of fraud and corruption; but his malversations were so notorious, that George was compelled to escape from the pursuits of justice.

After this disgrace, in which he appears to have saved his fortune at the expense of his honour, he embraced, with real or affected zeal, the profession of Arianism. From the love, or the ostentation, of learning, he collected a valuable library of history, rhetoric, philosophy, and theology; and the choice of the prevailing faction promoted George of Cappadocia to the throne of Athanasius. The entrance of the new archbishop was that of a barbarian conqueror; and each moment of his reign was polluted by cruelty and avarice.

The Catholics of Alexandria and Egypt were abandoned to a tyrant, qualified by nature and education to exercise the office of persecution; but he oppressed with an impartial hand the various inhabitants of his extensive diocese.
oppresses Alexandria and Egypt.

The primate of Egypt assumed the pomp and insolence of his lofty station; but he still betrayed the vices of his base and servile extraction. The merchants of Alexandria were impoverished by the unjust and almost universal monopoly, which he acquired, of nitre, salt, paper, funerals, etc.: and the spiritual father of a great people condescended to practice the vile and pernicious arts of an informer. The Alexandrians could never forget, nor forgive, the tax which he suggested on all the houses of the city, under an obsolete claim that the royal founder had conveyed to his successors, the Ptolemies and the Caesars, the perpetual property of the soil. The Pagans, who had been flattered with the hopes of freedom and toleration, excited his devout avarice, and the rich temples of Alexandria were either pillaged or insulted by the haughty prelate, who exclaimed in a loud and threatening tone, “How long will these sepulchres be permitted to stand?” Under the reign of Constantius he was expelled by the fury, or rather by the justice, of the people; and it was not without a violent struggle that the civil and military powers of the state could restore his authority, and gratify his revenge.

The messenger who proclaimed at Alexandria the accession of Julian announced the downfall of the archbishop (361) George, with two of his obsequious ministers, count Diodorus, and Dracontius, master of the mint, were ignominiously dragged in chains to the public prison. He is massacred by the people, December 24, At the end of twenty-four days the prison was forced open by the rage of a superstitious multitude, impatient of the tedious forms of judicial proceedings. The enemies of gods and men expired under their cruel insults; the lifeless bodies of the archbishop and his associates were carried in triumph through the streets on the back of a camel; and the inactivity of the Athanasian party was esteemed a shining example of evangelical patience. The remains of these guilty wretches were thrown into the sea; and the popular leaders of the tumult declared their resolution to disappoint the devotion of the Christians, and to intercept the future honours of these martyrs, who had been punished, like their predecessors, by the enemies of their religion.

The fears of the Pagans were just, and their precautions ineffectual. The meritorious death of the archbishop obliterated the memory of his life. The rival of Athanasius was dear and sacred to the Arians, and the seeming conversion of those sectaries introduced his worship into the bosom of the Catholic church.

The odious stranger, disguising every circumstance of time and place, assumed the mask of a martyr, a saint, and a Christian hero;. and worshipped as a saint and martyr and the infamous George of Cappadocia has been transformed into the renowned St. George of England, the patron of arms, of chivalry, and of the garter.

(DEF v.2 ch.23, pp.901-903)

Book Cover of Julian's Caesars - Loeb Edition - part of his collected works - In the original Greek and in English Translation (1913) - a handy volume to have around to spend some time with a witty, self-deprecating (and once VERY POWERFUL) man

 
Julian’s Ceasars – a kind of Emperor’s Reality Show

Gibbon loves Julian – his writing style, his wit, his philosophical dedication to reason and learning. In a strange, long one paragraph stand-alone essay, Gibbon writes a brief review of Julian’s Caesars at the very beginning of chapter 24, just before we launch into the last year of Julian’s life and his Persian campaign (an English translation of Julian’s Caesars here).

This from Gibbon:

The philosophical fable which Julian composed under the name of the Caesars is one of the most agreeable and instructive productions of ancient wit. During the freedom and equality of the days of the Saturnalia, Romulus prepared a feast for the deities of Olympus, who had adopted him as a worthy associate, and for the Roman princes, who had reigned over his martial people and the vanquished nations of the earth.

The immortals were placed in just order on their thrones of state, and the table of the Caesars was spread below the moon, in the upper region of the air. The tyrants, who would have disgraced the society of gods and men, were thrown headlong, by the inexorable Nemesis, into the Tartarean abyss. The rest of the Caesars successively advanced to their seats; and as they passed, the vices, the defects, the blemishes of their respective characters, were maliciously noticed by old Silenus, a laughing moralist, who disguised the wisdom of a philosopher under the mask of a Bacchanal.

As soon as the feast was ended, the voice of Mercury proclaimed the will of Jupiter, that a celestial crown should be the reward of superior merit. Julius Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, and Marcus Antoninus, were selected as the most illustrious candidates; the effeminate Constantine was not excluded from this honourable competition; and the great Alexander was invited to dispute the prize of glory with the Roman heroes. Each of the candidates was allowed to display the merit of his own exploits; but, in the judgment of the gods, the modest silence of Marcus pleaded more powerfully than the elaborate orations of his haughty rivals. When the judges of this awful contest proceeded to examine the heart and to scrutinise the springs of action, the superiority of the Imperial Stoic appeared still more decisive and conspicuous.

Alexander and Caesar, Augustus, Trajan, and Constantine acknowledged, with a blush, that fame, or power, or pleasure, had been the important object of their labours; but the gods themselves beheld with reverence and love a virtuous mortal, who had practised on the throne the lessons of philosophy, and who, in a state of human imperfection, had aspired to imitate the moral attributes of the Deity. The value of this agreeable composition (the Caesars of Julian) is enhanced by the rank of the author.

A prince, who delineates with freedom the vices and virtues of his predecessors, subscribes, in every line, the censure or approbation of his own conduct.

(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.909-910)

and a sample of Julian’s easy-going style – the contest among the emperors before the Gods of who was the most worthy:

[328] When Marcus Aurelius began to speak, Silenus whispered to Dionysus, “Let us hear which one of his paradoxes and wonderful doctrines this Stoic will produce.” But Marcus turned to Zeus and the other gods and said, “It seems to me, O Zeus and you other gods, that I have no need to make a speech or compete. If you did not know all that concerns me it would indeed be fitting for me to inform you. But since you know it and nothing at all is hidden from you, do you of your own accord assign me such honour as I deserve.” Thus Marcus showed that admirable as he was in other respects he was wise also beyond the rest, because he knew “When it is time to speak and when to be silent.”

Constantinus was allowed to speak next. On first entering the lists he was confident enough. But when he reflected on the exploits of the others he saw that his own were wholly trivial. [329] He had defeated two tyrants, but, to tell the truth, one of them was untrained in war and effeminate, the other a poor creature and enfeebled by old age, while both were alike odious to gods and men. Moreover his campaigns against the barbarians covered him with ridicule. For he paid them tribute, so to speak, while he gave all his attention to Pleasure, who stood at a distance from the gods near the entrance to the moon. Of her indeed he was so enamoured that he had no eyes for anything else, and cared not at all for victory. However, as it was his turn and had to say something, he began:

“In the following respects I am superior to these others; to the Macedonian in having fought against Romans, Germans and Scythians, instead of Asiatic barbarians; to Caesar and Octavianus in that I did not, like them, lead a revolution against brave and good citizens, but attacked only the most cruel and wicked tyrants. As for Trajanus, I should naturally rank higher on account of those same glorious exploits against the tyrants, while it would be only fair to regard me as his equal on the score of that territory which he added to the empire, and I recovered; if indeed it be not more glorious to regain than to gain. As for Marcus here, by saying nothing for himself he yields precedence to all of us.”

“But Constantinus,” said Silenus, “are you not offering us mere gardens of Adonis as exploits?”

“What do you mean,” he asked, “by gardens of Adonis”?

“I mean”, said Silenus, “those that women plant in pots, in honour of the lover of Aphrodite, by scraping together a little earth for a garden bed. They bloom for a little space and fade forthwith.” At this Constantinus blushed, for he realised that this was exactly his own performance.

(Translation by W.C.Wright, 1913, p. 328 – 329 (of the Greek text))

Day 139 – Ken here (Th)(1-28-2010)
(DEF v.2, ch.23, pp.890-900)

It’s a beautiful, sunny day outside, with melting turquoise skies and brilliant white clouds like a Maxfield Parrish mural – and I’m inside blogging (but I’m also a little under the weather here – although it would be better probably to be outside, under-the-weather to mix metaphors).

Still, here I sit – reading Gibbon and writing random thoughts. I’m also in the middle of Vidal’s Julian, and White’s The Once and Future King, and Marias’ History of Philosophy, and Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire – no wonder I’m not getting more done – it’s amazing I’m getting to this blog each day. Today we get to some pivotal moments in Julian’s life – his quarrel with the-very-Christian Syrians in Antioch, and the very curious ending to the project of rebuilding the Hebrew temple in Jerusalem.

The more I read, the more I’m convinced that the 4th century holds the key to modern Western Europe – it is the beginning, and as Princess Irulan reminds us in a very fractal way in Dune, “The beginning is a very delicate time”. We know that while broad patterns in huge, chaotic systems have a great deal of momentum, often the knife edge of a fractal decision can make one person or event decide the fate of millions for centuries afterwards (the Butterfly in Australia Effect – which incidentally, is also a Rock Band in Australia – a kind of pleasing fractal symmetry, that).

Again, I wonder, what the world would be like now if Julian had lived…

The Story
 
The Rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem

Gibbon notes that Julian’s building program failed – by the obvious existence of the Dome of the Rock,(i.e. now a mosque sits on the place of the 2nd temple which was built 330 years or so after Julian tried to rebuild the temple by Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (685-691))

Julian fails in re-building due to miraculous interventions by random, roaming fire-balls wreaking havoc on the construction site. And of course, his death in Persia in the same year puts a damper on construction (as his successors were Christian) – see the story below of the Balls of Fire

 
Julian Does his Best to Irritate/Weaken the Christians

Julian consistently refers to Christians as GALILEANS (as Christos in Greek means “anointed” and connotes royalty, so Julian identifies them as adherents of a sect that follows a man from a certain part of a Roman province – Galilee in Roman Palestina Secunda), and refers to churches as CHARNEL HOUSES (ie places where dead bodies are kept above ground – houses filled with corpse’s bones) (it sounds much worse in Greek than English) – due to the early Christian custom of worshiping the bones of martyrs and saints for their miraculous powers (saints’ bones are like electrical wiring – they are direct connections with the high-tension spiritual power lines of God – good things to have around if you need some spiritual power)

Julian makes it illegal for Christians to teach the Classics – this is the same as prohibiting Christians from teaching Science, Literature, History, etc today – a devastating prohibition – the more so because in Antiquity, the only way to move up the social ladder was to have a Classical eduction – it was required for all government (and church) work. This, in effect, made all Christians legally blue-collar workers

Gibbon is scandalized by the prohibition – yet the Christians would (in the last 30 years, and esp., the next 30 years) shut down all temples, oracles, sacred groves, etc – wiping out all forms of paganism and relegating Hellenism and paganism to a kind of satanic limbo. In 2 generations, people will not even remember what the temples were for and will assume they are the remains of a vanished race of demon-worshipers. This is the end of Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages/Dark Ages

Julian removes Christians from the military, government, etc

Julian forces Christians to restore the temples, and to give back lands, wealth, etc given as patrimony to temples for their upkeep. Also, any churches, or bodies buried on sacred sites are to be removed and the temples/sites purified. If the example below of Antioch is in any representative of the whole empire, Julian was already too late – the temples were deserted, the crowds enthusiastically Christian, the pagans in their last generation

IN perhaps the hardest blow – Julian prohibits people from leaving property to the Church in their wills (a very significant source of income for the Church – as people are more likely to give up all their material possessions once they have no more need for the material)

 
Julian, Daphne, and the Lunatics of Antioch

Gibbon gives a long 3 page description of Antioch in Seleucid times – and of the foundation of the great temple complex/groves of Daphne in a suburb of Antioch. The groves are famous as a meeting place for sexual, sensual, casual encounters.

Gibbon also describes the sensual, luxury-loving, quick-thinking, big-city, passionate Antiochenes (kind of like mixing a New Yorker with a New Orleans-er) – who have moved from rabid fanaticism for Apollo and Daphne to even more fanatical adherence to Arian Christianity

Julian approaches Daphne with ecstatic expectations, expecting crowds, sacrifices of hundreds of cattle, lavish worship of the God of Light Apollo, and finds fallen-down buildings, one decrepit priest, and a single goose (the poverty-stricken priest purchased the goose himself for the sacrifice on behalf of the emperor of the Western world – Julian). Julian is scandalized.

The church built in the middle of the grove (St. Babylus) together with the saint’s bones entombed there are removed (the church pulled down, the bones reverently returned to the cathedral in Antioch). The Antiochenes use this opportunity (the translation of the bones of St. Babylus) to thumb their noses at Julian by chanting loudly and triumphantly about the victories of the One God over Idols as they march the bones back – bad idea to openly irritate an emperor – but the Antiochenes were never very smart that way

Somehow the night of the march, the decrepit temple is burnt down, the ancient statue of Apollo is destroyed, Daphne is a ruin. Julian is sure it was arson – although the Antiochenes claim it was a divine lightning bolt (yeah – right…). Julian responds by closing the Cathedral of Antioch, confiscating all its wealth (a HUGE amount of money), and arresting and torturing key Cathedral priests, etc implicated in the fire.

Unlike Antioch, many cities in Palestine, Syria, etc voluntarily give up their churches and become pagan once again – so Julian’s schemes might have worked had he lived another 30 years (ex. Gaza, Ascalon, Caesarea, Heliopolis, etc)

Dome of the Rock (Mosque of Omar, Jerusalem) (691) - sacred to 3 religions: - to Jews, it is the site of the 2nd Temple and the site where Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac, to Christians it is the site of many incidents in Jesus' life, to Muslims, it is the site of Mohammed's miraculous night journey to Jerusalem and back, and the place angels drew Mohammed up to heaven when he left the earth. Buried somewhere underneath this mosque are the remains of the foundations Julian's aborted 3rd temple

 
The Temple and the Balls of Fire

This per Gibbon:

Perhaps the absence and death of the emperor, and the new maxims of a Christian reign, might explain the interruption of an arduous work, which was attempted only in the last six months of the life of Julian. But the Christians entertained a natural and pious expectation that in this memorable contest the honour of religion would be vindicated by some signal miracle. An earthquake, a whirlwind and a fiery eruption, which overturned and scattered the new foundations of the temple are attested, with some variations, by contemporary and respectable evidence.

This public event is described by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in an epistle to the emperor Theodosius, which must provoke the severe animadversion of the Jews; by the eloquent Chrysostom, who might appeal to the memory of the elder part of his congregation at Antioch – and by Gregory Nazianzen, who published his account of the miracle before the expiration of the same year. The last of these writers has boldly declared that this preternatural event was not disputed by the infidels; and his assertion, strange as it may seem, is confirmed by the unexceptionable testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus.

The philosophic soldier, who loved the virtues without adopting the prejudices of his master, has recorded, in his judicious and candid history of his own times, the extraordinary obstacles which interrupted the restoration of the temple of Jerusalem. “Whilst Alypius, assisted by the governor of the province, urged with vigour and diligence the execution of the work, horrible balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, with frequent and reiterated attacks, rendered the place, from time to time, inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and, the victorious element continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent, as it were, to drive them to a distance, the undertaking was abandoned.”

Such authority should satisfy a believing, and must astonish an incredulous, mind. Yet a philosopher may still require the original evidence of impartial and intelligent spectators. At this important crisis any singular accident of nature would assume the appearance, and produce the effects, of a real prodigy. This glorious deliverance would be speedily improved and magnified by the pious art of the clergy of Jerusalem, and the active credulity of the Christian world; and, at the distance of twenty years, a Roman historian, careless of theological disputes, might adorn his work with the specious and splendid miracle

(DEF v.2, ch.23, p.891)

John Chrysostom - from a mosaic in the Hagia Sophia (emperor Justin's time - mid 500's - 200 years from now). John, like most men of Antiquity is utterly incomprehensible to us. He had a great heart, was kind and gentle, but also capable of murderous hatred.

Murderous Hatreds – John Chrysostom’s Original Sermon’s Text (the text Gibbon referred to above)

John Chrysostom (Golden Mouth) preaching against the Jews in his hometown (reading the early Fathers of the Church is a difficult feat sometimes – not because of the text, or the translation, but due to the unvarnished hatred and sheer cruelty they glory in. Their invective embarrasses a modern reader and renders the Fathers useless in the very task God has supposedly set for them: spiritual instruction (notwithstanding all talk of “relativism” and “context”). At any rate, embedded in a hateful attack/sermon on Jews, John makes the following historical references to Julian’s 3rd temple (from here):

(3)Do you see the first attempt of the impudent Jews? Now look at the next. They tried the same thing in the time of Constantine. But the Emperor saw what they tried to do, cut off their ears, and left on their bodies this mark of their disobedience. He then had them led around everywhere, like runaway slaves and scoundrels, so all might see their mutilated bodies and always think twice before ever attempting such a revolt. “Yet these things happened very long ago,” the Jews will say. But I tell you that the incident is well known to those of us who are somewhat on in years and are already old men.

(4) But what I am going to tell you is clear and obvious even to the very young. For it did not happen in the time of Hadrian or Constantine, but during our own lifetime, in the reign of the Emperor of twenty years ago. Julian, who surpassed all the emperors in irreligion, invited the Jews to sacrifice to idols in an attempt to drag them to Iris own level of ungodliness. He used their old way of sacrifice as an excuse and said: “In the days of your ancestors, God was worshipped in this way.”

(5) They refused his invitation, but, at that time, they did admit to the very things I just lately proved to you, namely, that they were not allowed to offer their sacrifices outside Jerusalem. Their answer was that those who offered any sacrifice whatsoever in a foreign land were violating the Law. So they said to the Emperor: “If you wish to see us offer sacrifices, give us back Jerusalem, rebuild the temple, show us the holy of holies, restore the altar, and we will offer sacrifices again just as we did before.”

(6) These abominable and shameless men had the impudence to ask these firings from an impious pagan and to invite him to rebuild their sanctuary with his polluted hands. They failed to see that they were attempting the impossible. They did not realize that if human hands had put an end to those things, then human hands could get them back for them. But it was God who destroyed their city, and no human power could ever change what God had decreed. “For what God, the Holy One, has planned who shall dissipate? His hand is stretched out; who will turn it back?” What God has reared up and wishes to remain, no man can tear down. In the same way, what he has destroyed and wishes to stay destroyed, no man can rebuild.

(7) I grant you that the Emperor did give you Jews back your temple and did build you an altar, just as you foolishly suspected he would. But he could not send down to you the heavenly fire from on high, could he? Yet if you could not have this fire, your sacrifice had to be an abomination and unclean. This is why the sons of Aaron perished; they brought ill a foreign fire.

(8) Nonetheless, these Jews, who were blind to all things, called on the Emperor for help and begged him to aid them in undertaking to rebuild the temple. The Emperor, for his part, spared no expense, sent engineers from all over the empire to oversee the work, summoned craftsmen from every land; he left nothing undone, nothing untried. He overlooked nothing but worked quietly and a little at a time to bring the Jews to offer sacrifice; in this way he expected that it would be easy for them to go from sacrifice to the worship of idols. At the same time, in his mad folly, he was hoping to cancel out the sentence passed by Christ which forbade the rebuilding of the temple. But tie who catches the wise in their craftiness straightway made clear to him by His action that the decrees of God are mightier than any man’s and that works get their strength from the word of God.

(9) They started to work in earnest on that forbidden task, they removed a great mound of earth and began to lay bare the foundations. They were just about to start building when suddenly fire leaped forth from the foundations and completely consumed not only a great number of the workmen but even the stones piled up there to support the structure. This put a stop to the untimely obstinacy of those who had undertaken the project. Many of the Jews, too, who had seen what had happened, were astonished and struck with shame. The Emperor Julian had been madly eager to finish the work. But when he heard what had happened, he was afraid that, if he went on with it, he might call down the fire on his own head. So he and the whole Jewish people withdrew in defeat.

(10) Even today, if you go into Jerusalem, you will see the bare foundation, if you ask why this is so, you will hear no explanation other than the one I gave. We are all witnesses to this, for it happened not long ago but in our own time. Consider how conspicuous our victory is. This did not happen in the times of the good emperors; no one can say that the Christians came and prevented the work from being finished. It happened at a time when our religion was subject to persecution. when all our lives were in danger, when every man was afraid to speak, when paganism flourished. Some of the faithful hid in their homes, others fled the marketplaces and moved to the deserts. That is when these events occurred. So the Jews have no excuse left to them for their impudence.

(John Chrysostom, Homily V, Part XI, para.3-10)

Interior of the Dome of the Rock, showing the physical rock which is sacred to 3 religions. In the early 360's, balls of fire played about this place, as it was surrounded by construction workers and scaffolding and foundation stones during Julian's attempt to build the 3rd temple in Jerusalem