Four letter-writers: Religion in Pliny, Trajan, Libanius, and Julian
VeitRosenberger
"Individualization" is a both helpful and problematic term. If we follow the Munich Protestant theologian FriedrichWilhelmGraf, for whom “individualization” is too vague because it describes everything and nothing[1], the word is not a helpful interpretationfor understanding a society. But then, Graf writesalmost exclusively about the early modern and modern world. Since our task is to find traces of “individualization” in the ancient world, we might feel safe from Graf's verdict for the moment. One of the approaches in tracking down “individualization” is to delve into the ancient epistolographic tradition.[2]In this paper, I would like to analyze the letters of Pliny, Trajan, Libanius and Julian.
That this approach involves serious methodological questions, if not insurmountable problems, requires no explanation.Firstly there is the question of quantity and quality.In the case of Pliny and Julian, we have a set of 121 letters; however, the correspondence between Julian and Libanius is much smaller. Libanius produced more than 1,500 letters that still survive.In some cases, it is doubtful whether a letter was actually written by its supposed author, as letters might be regarded as genuine or as forgeries.[3] The corpus of the letters ofJulian or Libanius differs in every edition; it can be a difficult task to find a letter from the Loeb edition in the Tusculum series or in each volume of the Collection Budé. Secondly,letters mirrormany differentcommunicative situations: a letter to a friend is quite different from a letter to the emperor, which might go through many hands until finally being read aloud to the ruler; some of the texts in the editions of Julian's letters are edicts that were sent to his subjects. Pliny wrote to the emperor as legatus Augusti in a Roman province, Libanius wrote as a professor of rhetoric.Furthermore, one has to be aware of the thorny area of “private” and “public” in ancient letters, letters originally written or later revised to be published for a wider audience and posthumous publications of letters.Thirdly, letters are only a fraction of our authors'literary output. It might seem unbalanced to ignore Pliny's Panegyricus, Libanius' speeches, Trajan's rescripts, Julian's Misopogon, imperial coins and inscriptions, to name but a few. By confining my research to the letters, I hope to shed unusual and fresh light on the views of the four authors.To some degree, all four writers belong to the Second Sophistic: the knowledge of Greek, the importance of paideia is paramount to them – with the exception of Trajan: his letters to Plinyare short and technical; but as a member of the elite,Trajan knew his Greek, too.
Taking into account and yet leaving aside all these methodological problems, there arequite a number of statements about religion in the letters of Pliny, Trajan, Libanius and Julian. Writing about two hundred and fifty years afterPliny and Trajan, Libanius and Julian witnessed a changed religious world. While Pliny and Trajan still lived in the heyday of the pagan cults, Libanius and Julian had to defend their paganism – hellenismos, as Julian would say – against the omnipresent Christians. Because “changes” can indicate the phenomenon of “individualization”, the analysis of the four authors promises to be fruitful. My thesis is that we can track down an intensification of “individualization” in the letters of Julian compared to the other three writers. In the first part I shall deal with Pliny and Trajan; the second chapter examines religion in the letters of Libanius and Julian.
1. Pliny and Trajan
Plinythe Younger's letters are, as JohnHenderson remarked, “oceanic” in scope – and can therefore be interpreted in various ways[4]. In the Early Modern period, Pliny´s confession became an issue.The edition of C.PliniiCaeciliiSecundiEpistolae et Panegyricus, byChristophCellarius, Leipzig 1700, contains a iudicium, quo Christianum eum non fuisse, ut volunt alii, ostenditur. For early modern authors, it was an important question as to whether Pliny was a Christian or not. In the eyes ofG.BoissierPliny treated the gods with the greatest respect: “Pline ne parle jamais des dieux qu'avec le plus grand respect, et il ne paraît pas qu'autour de lui il y eût beaucoup d'incrédules.“[5]In contrast to this, we find in the Zürich dissertation of Hans-Peter Bütlerthat the gods were hardly important in Pliny's letters: „Die Bedeutung der Götter innerhalb der thematisch so umfassenden und vielfältigen plinianischen Briefsammlung ist…ziemlich gering“.[6]If one reads the letters looking for “individualization”, several aspects appear.
Superstition. Pliny gives no advice about orthopraxy, but he clearly states what is wrong: superstition. His personal enemy, M.AquiliusRegulus, worked also as an advocate. Regulus was a quaestor under Nero and succeeded in becoming a praetor.[7]Regulus is described as extremely superstitious and greedy. He visits a sick and wealthy widow, prepares her horoscope and concludes that she will live on; a haruspex (of the cheap sort) comesto the same conclusion – the widow died soon after, not without having granted Regulus a part of her money (2,20,6). At another time, Regulus asked a haruspex how fast he could make a fortune of 60 million sesterces (2,20,13f.). OctaviusAvitus, legate of the governor of Africa, anointed a dolphin, because he regarded the animal as a god. Pliny characterises this as religio prava. Funnily enough, the poor fish fled from the unknown smell of the oil.[8]Each time Pliny hammers home how inappropriate superstition is to an educated man.
An important aspect in Pliny´s letters is the afterlife. Pliny muses about a tomb and the proper inscription: “Everyone who has done some great and memorable deed should, I think, not only be excused but even praised if he wishes to ensure the immortality he has earned, and by the very words of his epitaph seeks to perpetuate the undying glory of his name.”[9]Although we might doubt whether this belongs to the field of “individualization”, it is worth mentioning because Cicero writes a lot about the proper place for the monument for his grave in his letters.
Dreams. Pliny refers about the lateGaiusFannius, who was engaged in writing the lives of those who were put to death or banished by Nero. He had already finished three books in an unadorned, accurate style and in the Latin language.
However, CaiusFannius had had for a long time a presentiment of what was to befall him. He dreamt in the quiet of the night that he was lying on his bed dressed for study and that he had a writing desk before him, as was his wont. Then he thought that Nero came to him, sat down on the couch, and after producing the first volume which Fannius had written about his crimes, turned over the pages to the end. He did the same with the second and third volumes, and then departed. Fannius was much alarmed, and interpreted the dream to mean that he would stop writing just where Nero had left off reading, and so the event proved.[10]
Pliny does not criticise this story as being superstitious. He comments on it with an almost epicurean remark: “Let us do our best, therefore, while life lasts, that death may find as few works of ours as possible for him to destroy.” In the famous letter to Suetonius about the meaning of dreams, Pliny quotes a warning dream he once had; he ignored the warning and was successful.[11] There is method behind this apparent ambiguity – others may believe in their dreams, but an educated man will not allow a dream the power to change his plans. History offers enough examples of successful men who interpreted a dream to their advantage.
Temples and sanctuaries. The citizens of TifernumTiberinum selected Pliny as theirpatronus when he was very young. Pliny feels an obligation to them. He wants to give back some of the respect he had earned at TifernumTiberinum, and decides to build a temple at his own expense. “Now that it is completed it would be hardly respectful to the gods to put off its dedication any longer. So we shall be present on the dedication day, which I have arranged to celebrate with a banquet.”[12]Pliny does not waste a single word on the god for whom he had built the temple. The temple was not the result of a deep religious feeling or of an obligation after receiving divine aid: Pliny simple felt he had to do something for the people of TifernumTiberinum. In another case, Pliny actually names the god:
I am told by the haruspices that I must rebuild the temple of Ceres which stands on my property; it needs enlarging and improving, for it is certainly very old and too small considering how crowded it is on its special anniversary, when great crowds gather there from the whole district on 13 September and many ceremonies are performed and vows made and discharged. But there is no shelter near by from rain or sun, so I think it will be an act of generosity and piety alike to build as fine a temple as I can and add porticoes – the temple for the goddess and the porticoes for the public.[13]
Pliny seems to have used the “functionalist approach” avant la lettre. Again, there is no word about a special relationship with the god, but this time he gives us the name of the god. He acts not sua sponte, but haruspicum monitu, he shows his pietas, he regards the temple and the precinct as a gathering place, and he seizes the opportunity to demonstrate that he is a good patronus: Pliny wants to build porticoes in order to keep people sheltered from rain and sun. In the rest of the letter Pliny discusses the architectural problems of the building. In the famous letter about the sanctuary of Clitumnus, Pliny offers an ekphrasis of the temenos: clear water, the temple and the image of the god, beautiful trees etc.[14] Only one aspect is worth mentioning:
Everything in fact will delight you, and you can also find something to read: you can study the numerous inscriptions in honour of the spring and the god which many hands have written on every pillar and wall. Most of them you will admire, but some will make you laugh – though I know you are really too charitable to laugh at any of them.
The educated visitor, as eager to read the inscriptions as a modern antiquarian, might be tempted to laugh at the texts – probably epigraphical documents recording the healing of a sickness. But his humanitas will keep him from laughing at the naïveté of the texts. In all, if Pliny describes a sanctuary, he is the educated man interested in what the others do there. He shows no religious feelings. Probably the most personal statement about religion is in a letter to ValeriusMaximus. When a person is sick: "it is then that he remembers the gods and realizes that he is mortal".[15] That is the time when a man starts to behave like a real philosopher.
Pliny and Trajan. More than once,Pliny prays for the emperor: "I pray that all success worthy of your reign may accrue to you, and through you to the human race". (Precor ergo, ut tibi et per te generi humano prospera omnia (10,1)[16]. "I beg the immortal gods that so happy an outcome may attend all your projects" (10,14). In general, Pliny displays hispietasand loyalty towards the emperor.[17] He petitions Trajan to award him the augurate or the status of Septemvir, ut iure sacerdotii precari deos pro te publice possim, quos nunc precor pietate privata.[18] Once Pliny has reached the augurate, he used this priesthood for his self-representation, since his great idol Cicero had also been augur. Another aspect is by far more interesting: Pliny explains that he reveres Trajan with hispietas privata; the priesthood offers him the opportunity to pray for the emperorpietate publica – this line of thought seems to be the opposite of “individualization”: Pliny's approach to the imperial cult can be described as “popularization” or “publicization” of religion – and is thus in keeping with the “civic cult”.
What can we say about Trajan's position on religion in his letters?[19] We know Trajan's letters only throughliterary tradition after the death of Pliny. What we have is the tip of an iceberg. In fact, an enormous mass of letters originated from the imperial offices during Trajan's19-year-reign. The emperor respondstwice on questions concerning sacred spacein Pliny's province Bithynia(10,50 and 72; cf. 10,76). In both cases, the ruler gives the subjects on whose behalf Plinyhad requestedpermissionto carry out their building activitiesthe green light to do so.In the letter about the Christians, Trajan backs Pliny's strategy, too. There is no mention of personal religion, no trace of an “individualization” of religion. This is due not only to the nature of an imperial rescript, but also – as I hope to show – to the pagan world Trajan lived in.
2. Libanius and Julian
Libaniuswas probably the most prolific letter-writer in antiquity. More than1,500 letters still survive.[20]Although he strongly favoured Julian's religious politics, Libanius does not differ significantly from Pliny when it comes to religion. In the letter to the praeses ArabiaeBelaios, who persecuted a Christian, Libanius presents the case of Marcus, the bishop of Arethusa in Syria. He had been responsiblefor the destruction of a temple and was severely punished. He was put on the rack,flogged andhis beard was plucked out. Marcus endured the punishment and gained enormous prestige; Libanius warns Belaios against producing another Christian martyr.[21] In a letter to QuintusAureliusSymmachus, Libanius remembers how he and Symmachus' father made vows for young Symmachus:
When he (the father) saw that I was not one to be dismissed out of hand, he told me much of your ability and prayed that by grace of the gods there would occur some such eventuality as would make you participate in my exertions. And I made the same prayer, too…[22]
As professor of rhetoric, Libanius had many students, some of them Christians. His most famous pupil was JohnChrysostomos, his second most important Christian student was Amphilochios. When he became bishop of Iconium, Libanios congratulated him in a polite letter. It is worth mentioning that Libanius does not use the word “bishop/episkopos”; he describes Amphilochios simply as a good orator with the ability to move his audience. For Libanius, it seems to make no differencewhether one moves people as a pagan rhetorician or as bishop. He certainly does not regard Amphilochios as a dissident.[23]
Julian was quite a dissident – Apostata –in the eyes of the Christians because he gave up the Christian faith. The debate about the exact moment of his apostasy, when he gained sole power or long before, is of no interest to us. As an emperor, Julian confessed to being a pagan, or in his own words, a “Hellenist”.[24]He was the first to use the ethnicon “Hellenist, Hellenismos” in a strictly religious sense, to distinguish the worshippers of the pagan gods from the Christians, some of which also claimed to be good Greeks with a decent paideia.[25]In inscriptions, Julian was hailed as restitutor libertatis et religionis Romanae.[26]Julian's agenda was not the persecution of the Christians. In the words of Christian authors, he tried to convert Christians to the pagan cults.[27] As HubertCancic has shown, Julian did not revive paganism, nor was he the “romantic on the throne”[28]. To say that his efforts “were largely divisive and served to fuel the rising tide of intolerance”[29] is probably too harsh.Julian became a character in modern novels and is one of the widely known ancient persons these days.[30]
Contrary to the other letter-writers Julian has a religious agenda – and he is willing to write about it.[31] Some of the letters are not private letters but rather more laws or decisions sent to a particular city in order to solve a specific problem. Since religion is omnipresent in Julian'sletters, we are in the comfortable positionof being able to make a selection and to look for hints of changes in traditional religious patterns.
Insights into personal religion. Julian was proclaimed Augustus by his troops in Gaul in 360. Seemingly reluctant, Julian accepted the honour. In the next year he was ready to fight Constantius, but the emperor died, leaving Julian as the sole ruler. In a letter to his uncle Julian, the new emperor describes how the gods had helped him (9; 5,382)
But Helios, whom of all the gods I besought most earnestly to assist me, and sovereign Zeus also, bear me witness that never for a moment did I wish to slay Constantius, but rather wished the contrary. Why then did I come? Because the gods expressly ordered me, and promised me safety if I obeyed them, but if I stayed, what I pray no god may do to me!
In a letter to the Athenians (284a-285d), Julian explains the signs given to him by the gods during his mutiny against Constantius. Two aspects are of interest to us in this subject. Firstly, Julian is, as far as I can see, the first pagan to say in a letter that “the gods told him to do so and so”. This is a clear sign of a radicalization in the relationship between a human being and the gods. It goes without saying that such a line of argument is inconceivable without the Christians.
Certainly, since the times of Herodotus – or even before, oracles told their clients what to do. But most oracular responses usually gave advice for rituals, for exampleon which gods sacrifices should be made to. Only in the mythological oracles people were told what they should do. Secondly, the specifics of the situation require consideration.Julian was about to usurp the title of Augustus, thereby bringing the empire to thebrink of civil war. During the civil wars of the LateRepublic, Roman generals hastened to demonstrate their access to divine will by employing personal or private seers. But as far as we can tell from our sources,they did not exclaim that they were acting because a god had told them to do so. Julian is a turning-point: there is a direct line from Julian to the exclamation Deus vult!, which gave rise to the first crusade. It should be noticed that other anecdotes about the usurpation show no traces of a change. The dream which Julian describes in his letter to Oribasius of Pergamon is perfectly within the usual set of dreams prophesying the throne.[32]