LIBANIUS' WRITINGS AND ‘PAGAN PARTY’ FOCUSED ON JULIAN

Paul Petit has argued that Libanius' writings reveal to us a ‘confrérie’ or ‘société’ based on religious allegiance in Antioch: ‘le parti Païen’. He suggests that various references in Libanius to ‘good men (agathoi)’, ‘companions (hetairoi)’ (F.1433) and ‘literary clubs (syllogoi)’ (Or. 14.42 (F.ⅱ.102)) enable us to construct a picture of a literary-religious group meeting under Constantius to recruit new followers and prepare for Julian to come to power. Petit continues to track the existence of such a ‘pagan party’ after the accession of Julian, as it gained favour from imperial power. He lists six people who formed a gang or ‘brains trust’ around the emperor Julian: Maximus of Ephesus, Priscus 5, Himerius, Oribasus, Secundius Salutius and Anatolius 5/4. After the death of Julian, Petit sees this party as continuing to exist into the reign of Valens and Valentinian, but only in ‘semi-secrecy’ and ‘remembrance of past activities’. The idea of the ‘pagan party’ was revisited more recently by Malosse, who suggests that we can identify certain friends and old students of Libanius as its members. Malosse's list includes Entrechius, Helpidius 6, Seleucus 1, Fortunatianus and Celsus, as well as Ablabius, otherwise unknown (Ep. F.493). The focus for Malosse's pagan party, as for Petit's, is the emperor Julian. Malosse refers to the fact that in 353 Entrechius was looking forward to seeing the emperor in Bithynia (Ep. B.23 (F.493). The focus for Malosse's pagan party, as for Petit's, is the emperor Julian.

LIBANIUS' LABELLING AND DEFINITION OF RELIGIOUS ALLEGIANCE

References to religious allegiance are the exception rather than the rule in Libanius' writings. He wrote orations and letters on a whole range of topics including education, social reform (on behalf of prisoners and peasants, for example), civic life and imperial administration, almost without mentioning religious issues in any significant way. Libanius' sense of himself as someone who adhered to traditional religion simply did not impose on these matters in a consistent way and was rarely something he thought relevant to mention. Against this background, the examples where Libanius does mention religious allegiance and does explore religious difference are striking. The largest body of Libanius' writings that give a central place to religious issues are the Julianic orations (particularly Oration 13 An Address to Julian and Oration 12 An Address to the Emperor Julian as Consul written during Julian's stay in Antioch (the latter at the emperor's request); and also Orations 17 The Lament over Julian; 18 The Funeral Oration; and 24 On Avenging Julian) and the letters written during and around the reign of Julian. Julian sought to restore Graeco-Roman religion as the state-sponsored religion, to convert people back from Christianity and to emphasize the most visual features of Graeco-Roman cult practice, such as blood sacrifice, which meant that Libanius was forced to discuss religious issues.

Chrysostom stood at the end of a long line of Christian leaders in antiquity who had sought to lay down rules and guidelines about what it meant to be Christian, Jewish and Greek and so to construct Christian identity. Like these earlier Christian leaders, Chrysostom wanted to define clearly what it meant to be Christian to ensure that this was something that transformed individuals permanently. In the context of the late fourth century this meant preaching the message of Christian identity and Greek and Jewish difference to his large civic audiences at every possible opportunity. He continually exhorted these audiences to display their Christianity in visible and recognizable ways and in every aspect of their lives: being Christian should permeate everything they said and did and they should always work to distinguish themselves from adherents of other religions. Chrysostom's ideal was that this should lead Christians to have their primary social relations with other Christians in a distinct community based on Christian values, beliefs and texts. This Christian community was then supposed to encompass and replace all other social allegiances, whether cultural, civic or even, to some degree at least, political: being Christian was supposed to be all there was. If one did not accept this all-encompassing Christian identity, one was not only labelled as Greek or Jewish, but could also be considered demonic.

Libanius, in contrast, shows us a very different perspective on the situation.

THE IMPERIAL CITY OF ANTIOCH

Seleucus I Nicator founded the city of Antioch on the banks of the river Orontes in 300 bc as part of his plan to Hellenize the region. The city came under Roman influence when Syria became a Roman province in 64 bc and continued to flourish throughout the imperial period. Despite some disruption in the 260s ad, when the city came under the control of the Palmyra, Antioch continued to be one of the largest and most important cities in the Roman empire after Rome and Alexandria. In the fourth century Antioch was a thriving city that confounds simplistic notions of civic decline in this period. Throughout most of this century Antioch was the metropolis of the province of Syria, the base for emperors engaged in Persian campaigns and home to an imperial palace and the other buildings necessary for an imperial base. At the same time it continued to be a wealthy and politically active city, an important trading point and a centre for education and culture. In many ways Antioch was thus a typical Graeco-Roman city, if a particularly important one that was close to the centres of imperial power. We also need to remember, however, that Antioch was also a famously Christian city. It was supposedly at Antioch that the Christians were first given the name ‘Christian’ and where they were first seen as a group distinct from Judaism.

RELIGIOUS ALLEGIANCE AND THE POLITICAL SPHERE

The religious and the political spheres were traditionally inseparable in the Graeco-Roman world. Good functioning of religion was seen as indispensable for good functioning of the state, and dysfunction in the state was seen as a religious problem too. Political allegiance to the state was often simultaneously religious allegiance to the gods of the state and the divine person of the emperor. It is not surprising that we see this attitude in some of Libanius' writing about the fourth century. He eulogized the emperor Julian's rule as divinely ordained and as exemplifying the ‘correct relationship between gods and empire’ and praised his restoration of blood sacrifice as beneficial to the whole world. When Julian died, possibly murdered, Libanius could then blame all the woes of the Roman empire on this event (Oration 24 On Avenging Julian (of 378)). In the 380s Libanius could continue to exploit these traditional ideas such as when he attributes Roman success in conquest to worship of the gods (Or. 30.5 and 33 (F.iii.90 and 104–5)). On other occasions he could express very similar views about Christian emperors: in his oration In Praise of Constans and Constantius he praises the rule of Constantius as having divine favour and being divinely inspired: ‘the reigns of the present empire lie in the hand of the power above …’ (Or. 59.48 (F.iv.232)). He could also praise Theodosius and his rule as divine in nature.