How useful is the Panegyric to the Emperor Julian by Claudius Mamertinus for understanding the life and times of the Emperor Julian? Illustrate your essay with specific examples.

The Panegyric to the Emperor Julian by Claudius Mamertinus was delivered to the Senate at Constantinople on the first day of 362 AD. Julian had only recently become sole Augustus, upon the death of his rival Constantius II. His short reign remains controversial, as the last pagan Emperor and with few unbiased sources to give an account of his life. In this speech, unlike the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, no mention is made of Julian’ early life. He was born in 331 in Constantinople, was the son of Julius Constantius, half brother of Emperor Constantine I, and his second wife, Basilina. He grew up in Bithynia, raised by his maternal grandmother, at the age of seven he was tutored by Eusebius, the Arian Christian Bishop of Nicomedia, and Mardonius, a Gothic eunuch. In 342 both Julian was exiled to the imperial estate of Macellum in Cappadocia. At the age of 18, the exile was lifted and he dwelt briefly in Constantinople and Nicomedia. In 351, Julian returned to Asia Minor to study Neoplatonism under Aedesius, and later to study the IamblichanNeoplatonism from Maximus of Ephesus. During his studies in Athens, Julian met Gregory Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea, two Christian’s who would later become his critics.
There is some debate as to the historical worth of this material. Pauly-Wissowa (1899) considered the speech to be of no real historical value, being as it was an obvious piece of pro-Julian propaganda. This has been refuted by later studies (for example Pichon, 1906; Galletier 1955), which view the oration as incisive as to the motivations and achievements of the emperor. The purpose of this essay then, is to assess the historical significance of the speech and to determine what, if anything, the orator reveals about the life of his subject.
Claudius Mamertinus’ background has been left to speculation rather than historical record. His concern for Gaul (Section 1.4) suggests he may have been a native, or perhaps just a long time resident of that province. There seems little doubt that he was a Westerner, addressing the Senate at Constantinople in Latin rather than the preferred Greek. We know little of his early career, only that his long held ambition to be appointed consul (17.1-4) would suggest that he had achieved some reputation in whatever he had engaged in. As he was a senator by provision of his office it cannot be assumed that he held this status prior to his appointment. Indeed, Jones (1964) notes that assuming he was a member of the western aristocracy, who at this time were reluctant to serve in the palatine ministries; it is likely that he had not. However, it is implied in the text that he had held various positions in the government (17.1-2), though the only ones he lists here are those offices to which he was appointed by Julian. He had been appointed comes sacrarum largitionum in 361, and in late 361 he took part in the Chalcedon tribunal to condemn the ministers of Constantius II. He was then made praetorian prefect and was later named as consul prior for 362. Later his prefecture would be extended by Julian to include Italy and Africa. Some speculate that he is the offspring or descendent of the orator of Panegyrics 10 and 11.
The situation at the time of the speech was one increased tension regarding the legitimacy of Julian’s reign as Emperor. It is also a time of great strife for the Empire. Mamertinus himself notes the provinces have been worn out by continued barbarian incursions near Gaul (1.4). Constantine II had died in 340 after an attacked on his brother Constans. Constans in turn dies in 350 in the war against Magnentius. This left Constantius II as the sole remaining emperor. Needing support he made Julian’s brother, Constantius Gallus, Caesar of the East in 351. Constantius himself turned his attention westward to Magnentius, whom he defeated in 351. However the Sassanid threat in the East was still present, so he turned to Julian, his last remaining male relative, for help. Constantius made him Caesar of the West on 6 November 355. In the years afterwards Julian fought against the numerous Germanic incursions upon the Roman Empire. He liberated Cologne during his first campaign in Gaul in 356. The following summer he lead an army of 13,000 men (Norwich, 1989, p. 86) defeated the Alamanni at the Battle of Strasbourg. In 358, Julian gained victories over the Salian Franks on the Lower Rhine, and over the Chamavi.
During the fourth year of his campaign in Gaul, the Sassanid Emperor Shapur II invaded Mesopotamia and took the city of Amida after a 73 day siege. In February 360, Constantius gave orders that Julian send Gallic troops to suplement his own eastern army. This provoked an insurrection by troops of the Petulantes, who went on to proclaime Julian their emperor in Paris. This in turn led to a swift military campaign to secure or win the allegiance of others. When forces loyal to Constantius II captured the city of Aquileia on the north Adriatic coast, it was subsequently besieged by 23,000 men (Norwich, 1989, p. 86) loyal to Julian. A full blown Civil war was only avoided by the death of Constantius, who recognized Julian as his rightful successor. Both the Eastern and Western armies were restless, the former blaming the court for their defeat and the later angered by the same officials for apparantly ignoring their concerns. To say the situation was unstable would be an understatement.
To understand the historical significance of the panegyric one must first delve into its background. It was motivated in part in order to justify his recent actions to his audience, but also served as a means to thank Julian for his consulship. It should therefore be noted that it surely would contain a considerable amount of bias toward a more favorable view of Julian’s regime. This sentiment is perhaps best summed up by the view of Nixon (1994, p. 34) that ‘panegyric is not history, and anyone approaching these speeches as a source of historical information must take into consideration the nature of the genre and its conventions.’ What is important is that the speech is a direct response to Julian’s recent usurpation of the throne, having two distinct political purposes. The first is to praise Julian’s leadership, highlighting the various failings of the previous Emperor Constantius and thus lessen the disgrace of usurpation. Secondly, it serves as a manifesto of Julian’s tenure as Caesar, outlining his plans for the future.
Mamertinus does not go into detail of the actual usurpation, and how Julian came to be declared Augustus. Libanius go into great detail of the circumstances, stressing the official version of events that the soldiers had proclaimed him Emperor against his own will (Norman, 1977). Various motives are described: their anger at Constantius, a desire to promote their leader Julian, even the claim that they were on a mission from god. Mamertinus’ account implies that Julian spearheaded the revolt, which given the evidence is probably more likely (cf. Mueller-Seidel, 1995, pp. 225-44). However, he does not specifically mention the act itself. This allowed him to gloss over the negotiations, which took place between the two parties during the hiatus after Julian had first entered Constantius’ territory. It would be more effective to use this information to justify the condemnation of the protests which were bound to arise, if they had not already.
During 360 an uneasy peace simmered between the two emperors. Julian continued his efforts to restore order along the Rhine, while Constantius continued operations against the Persians. This lasted through the summer of 361, but Julian concentrated his military operations around harassing the Alamannic, who had made peace with Constantius some years earlier. By the end of the summer, Julian decided to put an end to the waiting and gathered his army to march east against Constantius.
Constantius had spent the summer negotiating with the Persians and making preparations for possible military action against his cousin.The result of ignoring these events is to make it appear as though the revolt was a direct response to Constantius’ incitement of the barbarians to attack Julian’s forces. This, as Blockley (1972, pp. 441-442) postulated, placed justice “on the side of the usurper, who is presented as the savior of the Empire from the corruption of Constantius” Mamertinus usually refrains from criticizing Constantius directly, preferring to simply allude to his misgovernment. This reflected Julian’s own policy of remaining cautious when attacking his predecessor, for as Blockley (1972) noted, when an Emperor attacks his predecessor he will soon face opposition from both the East and the West. Mamertinus talks of soldiers being unpaid (1.4), cities falling into ruin (7.9) and legality counting for nothing (20.1-3). All the while he skillfully avoids confrontation by marking Constantius’ reign as one which had been marred by bad officials. He highlights this with the recent history of Gaul, claiming that the “wicked brigands who were called governors” had left its inhabitants to fend for themselves against barbarian incursions, allowing only those who could pay a bribe to escape (4.2). He points to the winter of 355, when Julian found much of the land sacked by German invaders, which he then found remarkably easy to disperse (3.1; 4.1). Rather than being grateful to Julian, those same officials attempted to turn Constantius against him (4.3-7). Mamertinus goes on to accuse other officials of bribery and corruption, men who ransacked their own provinces to meet their own ends (19.3-5).
His next target is the extravagance of the court itself, which had long been cultivated by Constantius I and his sons. He points to its massive expenditure; the self indulgent ceremonies, the armies of servants, even the ornate decorations of the palace itself are seen as excessive (11). Indeed later Julian would go on to reduce the expenses of the imperial court, removing all the eunuchs from the offices and at the same time reducing the number of servants. The Emperors’ style of governance is brought into question, Mamertinus’ comments of the corruption of courtiers and lack of reasonable judgment (20.4) implying the presence of an autocrat. This is further implied by accusations of Constantius’ jealousy toward Julian (4.3-7), which he believed manifested itself as allowing the misgovernment of the provinces (5.1).
This vision of the empire’s past is supported in part by the contemporary writings of Ammianus Marcellinus and Libanius of Antioch (cf. Norman, 1977; Mathews, 1989). The later speaks of extensive corruption within the state, particularly on the part of those closest to the Emperor; his eunuchs and notaries. He remarks that those in Gaul who had been captured by the Barbarians were better off than those who had been left. Ammianus makes similar claims, and even goes as far as to suggest that the Emperor’s wives had led him astray. Like Mamertinus he also hints at Constantius’ jealousy toward Julian, which he believed to have been knowingly aggravated by the court. Libanius directly accuses the Emperor of arrogant behavior. Again, as these sources are both considered to be pro-Julian it cannot be assumed that they give an entirely accurate depiction of the state of affairs at the time of his rise to power.
However, there are other accounts that exist which contradict this idea. Gregory Nazianzen’s, the Bishop of Constantinople, speech on the Invectives Against Julian (see Bowersock, 1978) praises Constantius’ reign, whilst criticizing Julian’s:
‘Hear this, thou Soul of the great Constantius!—-if thou art sensible of things below,—-and ye souls of all the emperors before him that were lovers of Christ; but of him (Constantius) above all the rest, inasmuch as he had grown up together with the inheritance of Christ, had augmented it to the utmost of his power, had made it strong through duration, so that he became on that account the most celebrated of all the sovereigns that had gone before.’
It should be noted that at the time this was written the Emperor Julian had publicly come out in opposition to Christianity. In response to the emperor’s rejection of the Christian faith, Nazianzen composed this speech with the intent to question the Emperor’s morals and intellect. He would naturally support and laud the Christian Constantius, who had valiantly defended the faith against Paganism. Indeed Justin’s actions and edicts created many enemies for him within the empire. Many of Julian’s critics of the time were angered Christians, meaning their account of events cannot be assumed accurate (Ibid.). However, it was these Christian’s which he believed were having a detrimental effect on the Empire itself.
Mamertinus speech does serve to highlight the underlying policy of Julian’s governance: to push away from the absolutist monarchs of the past, and return to the tradition of an Emperor as a constitutional ruler. Mamertinus considers his selection as consul as heralding a new golden age, with Julian as the restorer of the empire founded by Augustus. The comparison of Julian to Augustus has very real relevance to his situation. He is keen to stress that the imperial period was the true age of renewal. Augustus began this new era with his conception of a partnership between the emperor and Senate, based upon a series of honors and offices bestowed upon them in return for their role as mediator between emperor and the general population (2.1-2). Mamertinus used his own promotion to consul as an example of the bond that Julian was restoring. To be named consul by one who ruled by divine will was in itself considered a divine honor (16.1-4).
Mamertinus’ presents Julian as a slave to the Empire, personally taking on the duties that his processors had delegated to others (12.1). His account of Julian’s advance along the Danube, and the hope he apparently brought to the cities (7.3; 8.3-4), is an attempt to reflect his patrons desire to lower taxation and return the cities to their former glory. (11). Mamertinus suggest that unlike Constantius, Julian considers the four virtues of iustitia, fortitude, temperantia and prudentia to be the prerequisites for office, rather than wealth and lineage (17.3-4; 21; 25.1-2; 26.4-5). He looks for skill in war and legal ability in his officials (23.3-5), so consequently under his reign the study of philosophy and the liberal arts has been revived (23.4).
Mamertinus pushes these ideas further by promoting Julian’s own character as the driving force of this new prosperity. He claims that the new found wealth was only made possible by Julian’s frugality (10.2-3). He discards the luxury of the court in favor of a simpler lifestyle, likened to that of a common soldier (11.4). He labors to build a relationship with his officials and people in general (12; 30), a stark contrast to aloofness of Constantius. In short, he has no time to enjoy himself as he is devoted to the public good:
‘He apportions nothing to sleep, banquets or leisure; he cheats himself of the exercise of the natural and necessary; he is completely available for the public good.’ (14.3)
This is presented in direct contradiction to Julian’s predecessors:
‘For whatever others used to lavish on their personal luxuries is all now saved for the public benefit.’ (10.3)
For Julian power is a means for self-sacrifice, rather than self-gratification. Other pro-Julian sources, such as Libanius, support this idea of his frugality and honest work ethic.
Further praise is given to Julian’s generosity to not only his friends, but the citizens of the Empire (12.2-3). He makes a special effort to be approachable and friendly to the general public (12; 28-9; 30). He is one who cultivates friendship without the arrogance usually ascribed to one in his office:
‘You preserve friendships with the trust of a priuatus and the wealth of an emperor. Honesty is the foremost guarantee of everlasting of everlasting and constant kindness, the surest of virtues, particularly in a leader.’ (26.1)
Once again this sets him apart from other emperors (26.2-4), his consistency as a friend remains unchanged.
After all of these statements regarding the consistency of Julian’s character, Mamertinus goes on to consider its flexibility according to the circumstances (27.1-2). From this observation Mamertinus presents this flexibility as a virtue:
‘See whether favorable circumstances have changed him in any way from the custom and moderation of his former lifestyle. He has changed; clearly he has changed; for by gaining civilitas he has broken down the jealousy of the wealthy.’ (27.3)
Fundamental to Mamertinus’s eulogy of Julian’s republican sentiments are his examples of the Emperor’s private conduct. One area of Julian’s private conduct which is not touched upon is that of his own personal beliefs.
Julian’s religious status is a matter of considerable debate. Julian is known by Christians as the Apostate because of his conversion from Christianity to Theurgy. Private letters between him and the rhetorician Libanius reveal that Julian had Christianity forced on him as a child by his cousin Constantius II who, as a zealous Arian Christian, would have not tolerated a pagan relative (Norman, 1977). According to Bowersock (1978), Julian’s Paganism was atypical for the time because it was heavily influenced by an unusual approach to Platonic philosophy sometimes referred to as Neoplatonism. Rowland Smith et al (1995) has argued that holding a philosophical perspective was not unusual for a high standing Pagan of his time. Julian’s Paganism was not limited to philosophy alone, and that he was deeply devoted to the same Gods and Goddesses as other Pagans of his day. According to Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus, Julian ‘believed himself to be Alexander the Great in another body via transmigration of souls’ (Smith, 1995, p. 80). This is reminiscent of the teachings of Plato and Pythagoras.
Julian intended to restore the lost strength of the Roman State by starting a religious reformation. Since the persecution of Christians by his predecessors had apparently only strengthened Christianity, Julian endeavored to undermine the ability of Christians to organize resistance to the acceptance of paganism in the Empire. His wish to institutionalize a pagan hierarchy in opposition to the Christian one was intended to create a society in which every aspect of the life of the citizens would be connected to the Emperor. Within this scope there was no place for a parallel institution, such as the Christian hierarchy (Thompson, 1947, pp. 56-98).
Julian was convinced that he was right to outlaw the practice of the Christian view of Theurgy and demand the suppression of the Christian set of Mysteries. Evidence of this can be found in his School Edict forbidding teachers from using the pagan scripts that formed the basis of Roman education in Christian schools. This was an attempt to sap some of the power of the schools which used ancient Greek literature in their teachings in their effort to present Christian religion superior to paganism. The edict also gave a financial blow, depriving Christian teachers of students and therefore income. Julian reduced the influence of Christian bishops in public offices, who lost the privilege to travel at the expense of the State. The lands taken by the Church were to be returned to their original owners particularly the riches looted from the pagan temples after Constantine legitimized Christianity. His laws would tend to target the wealthy and educated Christian elite, and his aim being to drive the religion from the governing class.
It is interesting to note that religion is an issue which has been largely ignored by Mamertinus in his speech. His own beliefs cannot be confirmed by his reference to a deity (28.5). His audience would have contained many Christians, so this was more likely a tactful rather than a heartfelt statement. As has already bee mentioned there was some anger towards pro-Julian officials at this time. His defense of philosophy suggests that he himself was not a Christian. This is a useful observation as it reflects Julian’s own view on religion and Christianity, who surely would not have easily promoted Mamertinus to this position had he been a follower of Christ. Throughout the speech the subject is treated very cautiously, reflecting the official approach to religion at the time. When it was delivered in January 362, Julian had already confirmed his paganism and presumably had issued the edicts to reinstate the old gods and toleration of all creeds. However, these edicts cannot have had time to take effect, so his supporters would not have had time to evaluate their reception in the predominantly Christian city of Constantinople.
Given the circumstances, it is not unusual that the issue of religion has been overlooked here. However, the virtual absence of Julian’s military exploits is unusual considering the standards of the time. Indeed the Emperor’s whole reputation at this point is based on his military record, yet there is no real mention of his major achievements in Gaul. There is however one brief reference to the Battle of Strasbourg (4.3). More surprisingly there is only a brief allusion to the expedition into the Balkans against Constantius (6.2). This seems odd, given that one intention of the speech is to aid the legitimization of Julian’s reign. Both Ammianus and Libanius give detailed accounts of his campaign. Mamertinus downplays these events, suggesting that they have already been well publicized (3.1), and giving the impression that little effort was involved on the part of Julian.
As well as adding to Julian’s image of brilliance and humility, there are three very political reasons behind these omissions. First, the people of Constantinople would have had little interest in the successes of the western army, and to flaunt them may have been interpreted as an insult. The eastern army had only recently been taken over and to aggravate them by tales of western success would surely only serve to lessen Julian’s hold over them. Secondly, Mamertinus knows that strength through arms is often seen as characteristic of usurpation and is keen to downplay its role in government (13.2-3). Despite downplaying the military, he is still keen to note that Julian has control of it (24.5-7). Third, the trials of Constantius’ civilian officials at Chalcedon were still fresh in the people’s memory.
Julian held the tribunal at the city Chalcedon, which was then a suburb of Constantinople. Salutius Secundus, who was raised to the rank of Praetorian Prefect was given the chief oversight and with him were associated Claudius Mamertinus, Arbitio, Agilo, Nevitta and Jovinus, all military commanders. At this tribunal a large part of Constantius’s ministers were brought to trial. In charge of the daily inquisitions was Arbitio, ‘while the others were present merely for show’ according to historian Ammianus Marcellinus (Thompson, 1947, p.57). Palladius, Taurus, Euagrius, Saterninus and Cyrinus are known to have been exiled. Florentius, Ursulus and Eusebius were condemned to death. Apodemius and Paulus Catena were even burned alive. Another Florentius was imprisoned on a Dalmatian island. Constantius II died on 5 October 361, so all this must have happened in late 361 and early 362.
Thompson (1947) suggests that Julian had not allowed the military to use these trials to torture the former civilian officials who had criticized the army. Two weakesses undermine this thoery. It is unlikely that he was unaware of the division between the officials and the military, which was a regular problem during this period. Secondly, if Thomspon is correct by sugeesting that Mamertinus and Salutius were weak charcters, the Emperor would surely have already been aware of this .A more likely version of event, though less favourable to Julian, would be his manipulation of the proceedings as a means to gain support amongst the troops. By allowing the general to attack their enemies he would be able to remove those elements which were personally hostile to him, as well as to discredit the regime of Constantius.
All in all this speech tells us surprisingly little about the life and times of Emperor Julian. There is an accurate account of the situation of the Empire at this time, though given the wealth of material already on this subject it is hardly insightful. Julian’s military career, usually at the heart of these panegyrics, is all but absent. The brief mention of his glorious march along the Danube soon becomes overstated, and an obvious attempt to highlight Julian’s mission to revive the cities. The other great issue of the time, the question of religion, is similarly ignored by Mamertinus. Elusions are made to the return of Paganism, or philosophy, but understandably there is no real detail on the matter. This is understandable, given the time and shows the deep seated tension between the very recently established Christian faith and Julian’s own preference for Paganism. The absence of detail does in itself to provide some insight into the official policy of the time, reflecting Julian’s own cautious approach toward religion.
It is important to remember the dubious nature of panegyric as a source of historical information, Nixon (1995) summing it up as ‘panegyric is not history, and anyone approaching these speeches as a source of historical information must take into consideration the nature of the genre and its conventions.’ The speech was given partly in thanks for Mamertinus’ recent promotion, who would naturally want to depict his patron in the best possible light. The tone and content of the speech is heavily influenced by the desire to contrast the two respective characters of Constantius and Julian. He criticizes the state of the Empire before Julian came to save it from the grip of Constantius’ corrupt officials. Julian was the humble, frugal, hard working slave to the empire, whilst Constantius was the jealous and ill-advised tyrant, attacking Constantius, mamertinus concertrates on the crimes of the civilian officials. This is contrasted by streesing the ease of the campaign against the Germans compared to the fight against corruption. All this marks for a notably biased attempt to legitimize Julian’s reign against the stigma of usurpation. This was in essence an effective piece of pro-Julian propaganda.
Much of this has been contradicted by other, equally biased, historians of the time. However, these accounts are backed up by the admittedly pro-Julian Ammianus and Libanius. It is likely then that we have been given an accurate account of Julian’s character, or at least that character he wished others to know. This is what makes the speech useful in a historical sense. It does not necessarily give us insight into who Julian was, but how he wanted to be perceived. It gives details for his plans for reform: a return to the constitutional rule of the past. It points out the achievements that he has apparently made: the rejection of luxury, the removal of corrupt officials and the new wealth spreading to the cities. While not as inherently valuable as other works, it is these points which make the panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus to the Emperor Julian particularly useful.