We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 May 2011
The a.d. 362/3 crisis in Antioch is usually interpreted as an economic or ideological crisis, and Julian's Misopogon as a ‘festive satire’ or ‘edict of chastisement’. This article situates the root of the problem in a crisis of communication: Julian's failure to communicate publicly as expected in a situation that was tense because of the food shortage led to a short-circuit between emperor and subjects. Whilst the Misopogon is Julian's extraordinary post-factum attempt to explain away this failure of ritualized communication on his part, Libanius’ speeches on the topic seek to give a positive twist to the extraordinary nature of Julian's reply, which posed serious problems for emperor, city, and sophist alike.
1 cf. Jo.Mal., Chron. 13.19.
2 Festugière, A.-J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne. Libanius, Chrysostomos et les moines de Syrie (1959), 63–89Google Scholar; Lacombrade, C., L'empereur Julien. Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 2.2: Discours de Julien l'empereur (1964), 141–55Google Scholar; Browning, R., The Emperor Julian (1976), 158Google Scholar; Bowersock, G., Julian the Apostate (1978), 103Google Scholar. Müller, F. L., Die beiden Satiren Kaisers Julianus Apostata (Symposion oder Caesares und Antiochikos oder Misopogon) (1998), 164Google Scholar; Bouffartigue, J., ‘L’état mental de l'empereur Julien’, REG 89 (1989), 529–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Furthest in this direction has gone Wirth, G., ‘Julians Perserkrieg. Kriterien einer Katastrophe’, in Klein, R. (ed.), Julian Apostata (1978), 455–507Google Scholar.
3 Geffcken, J., Kaiser Julianus (1914), 114Google Scholar; Bidez, J., La vie de l'empereur Julien (1930), 289–91Google Scholar; Downey, G., ‘Julian the Apostate at Antioch’, Church History 8 (1939), 303–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who sees the Misopogon as an ideological justification of the forthcoming Persian campaign; Prato, C. and Micalella, D., Giuliano imperatore. Mispogone. Edizione critica, traduzione e commento (1979), 12–15Google Scholar; Alonso-Nuñez, J. M., ‘The emperor Julian's Misopogon and the conflict between Christianity and paganism’, AncSoc 10 (1979), 311–24Google Scholar; Athanassiadi-Fowden, P., Julian and Hellenism. An Intellectual Biography (1981), 201–10 (repr. P. Athanassiadi, Julian. An Intellectual Biography (1992))Google Scholar; Marcone, A., ‘Il conflitto fra l'imperatore Giuliano e gli Antiocheni’, A&R 26 (1981), 142–52Google Scholar; Rosen, K., ‘Julian in Antiochien oder Wie eine Theorie in der Praxis scheitert’, in Schuller, W., Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum (1998), 217–30Google Scholar; Stenger, J., Hellenische Identität in der Spätantike: pagane Autoren und ihr Unbehagen an der eigenen Zeit (2009), 265Google Scholar.
4 Wiemer, H.-U., Libanios und Julian. Studien zum Verhältnis von Rhetorik und Politik im vierten Jahrhundert n. Chr. (1995), 189–245, 269–356Google Scholar.
5 Gleason, M. W., ‘Festive satire: Julian's Misopogon and the New Year at Antioch’, JRS 76 (1986), 106–19, at 107Google Scholar.
6 Brown, P., Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity. Towards a Christian Empire (1992), 59Google Scholar.
7 Jul., Mis. 355c–d; Lib., Or. 16.36; Amm. 22.14.2–3; Socr., Hist. eccl. 3.17; Soz., Hist. eccl. 5.19. As during modern carnival, the lampoons during the New Year festival probably picked up and elaborated grievances and insults expressed both before and after the celebrations.
8 Gleason, op. cit. (n. 5), 107 lists the positive judgements of later readers on the Misopogon as a literary text. This shows that it was a convincing text, not that it was not an extraordinary response in the given situation (see already the comment by Bouffartigue, op. cit. (n. 2), 537). Scholars have criticized Gleason's emphasis on the normality of the Misopogon before: Müller, op. cit. (n. 2), 227 and H.-U. Wiemer, ‘Ein Kaiser verspottet sich selbst. Literarische Form und historische Julians, Bedeutung von Kaiser “Misopogon”’, in Kneissl, P. and Losemann, V. (eds), Imperium romanum. Studien zur Geschichte und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 75. Geburtstag (1998), 733–55, at 754Google Scholar.
9 Alföldi, A., Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (1970)Google Scholar.
10 MacCormack, S., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (1981)Google Scholar; McCormick, M., Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (1986)Google Scholar; Cameron, A., Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (1976)Google Scholar.
11 See, e.g., Koziol, G., Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (1992)Google Scholar; Buc, P., The Dangers of Ritual (2001)Google Scholar; Althoff, G., Die Macht der Rituale. Symbolik und Herrschaft im Mittelalter (2003)Google Scholar.
12 See Veyne, P., Le pain et le cirque. Sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cannadine, D. and Price, S. (eds), Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (1987)Google Scholar; Ando, C., Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flaig, E., Ritualisierte Politik. Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meier, M., Das andere Zeitalter Justinians: Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (2003)Google Scholar. Recent works, not all of them incorporating the more dynamic perspective of the studies just cited, include: Benoist, S., Rome, le prince et la cité: pouvoir impérial et cérémonies publiques (Ier siècle av.–début du IVe siècle apr. J.-C.) (2005)Google Scholar; Canepa, M. P., The Two Eyes of the Earth. Competition and Exchange in the Art and Ritual of Kingship between Rome and Sasanian Iran (2009)Google Scholar; Bérenger, A. and Perrin-Saminadayar, E. (eds), Les entrées royales et impériales: histoire, représentation et diffusion d'une cérémonie publique, de l'Orient ancien à Byzance (2009)Google Scholar.
13 For a summary of recent research, see Matthews, J., Laying Down the Law. A Study of the Theodosian Code (2000), 31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiemer, H.-U., ‘Akklamationen im spätrömischen Reich. Zur Typologie und Funktion eines Kommunikationsritual’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 86 (2004), 27–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Liebeschuetz, W., ‘Administration and politics in the cities of the 5th and 6th centuries with special reference to the circus factions’, in Lepelley, C. (ed.), La fin de la cité antique et le début de la cité médiévale (1996), 161–82, at 180Google Scholar; Borg, B. and Witschel, C., ‘Veränderungen im Repräsentationsverhalten der römischen Eliten während des 3. Jhs. n. Chr.’, in Alföldy, G. and Panciera, S. (eds), Inschriftliche Denkmäler als Medien der Selbstdarstellung in der römischen Welt (2001), 47–120, at 102Google Scholar; Hugoniot, C., ‘Les acclamations dans la vie municipale tardive’, in Inglebert, H. (ed.), Idéologie et valeurs civiques (2002), 179–88Google Scholar. See, in particular, the evidence from Aphrodisias: Roueché, C., ‘Acclamations in the Later Roman Empire. New evidence from Aphrodisias’, JRS 74 (1984), 181–99Google Scholar; Roueché, C. et al. ., Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity: the Late Roman and Byzantine Inscriptions Including Texts from the Excavations at Aphrodisias Conducted by Kenan T. Erim (1989)Google Scholar.
15 Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 13), 60: ‘die hauptsächliche Triebkraft für die Zunahme und Ausbreitung der Akklamationen über alle Bereiche des öffentlichen Lebens war zweifellos das Bestreben des spätantiken Kaisertumes, möglichst weite Kreise der Reichsbevölkerung an möglichst zahlreichen Zeremonien zu beteiligen, die ihnen die nötige und gewünschte Akzeptanz stets auf neue sicherten.’
16 Unexpected petitions: Ath., Apol. c. Ar. 86; Amm. 22.14.4; Marc. Diac., V. Porph. 47–9. Lack of support: Lib., Or. 33.12, 41.1, see also Or. 45.22. Similar phenomena have been described by Yavetz, Z., Plebs and Princeps (1969)Google Scholar and Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (1992, 2nd edn) for the early PrincipateGoogle Scholar.
17 Older scholarship was aware of the fact that insults and acclamations are just two faces of the same coin: Browning, R., ‘The riot of a.d. 387 in Antioch. The role of the theatrical claques in the Late Empire’, JRS 42 (1952), 13–20, at 17Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire. 284–602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (1964), Vol. 2, 722Google Scholar; Liebeschuetz, W., Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (1972), 209Google Scholar. Some recent scholarship has tended to identify acclamations exclusively as positive, staged utterances: Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 13); Connolly, S., ‘Constantine answers the veterans’, in McGill, S., Sogno, C. and Watts, E. (eds), From the Tetrarchs to the Theodosians: Later Roman History and Culture, 284–450 CE (2010), 93–114, at 101–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 The importance of acclamations, positive and negative, was recognized by the state: see, e.g., CTh 1.16.1, 7.20.2; Collectio Avellana 1 (CSEL 35); Soz., Hist. eccl. 2.25.7. We focus on the relation between emperor and subject, but it is obvious that acclamations were also directed at governors, bishops, and local grandees.
19 Amm. 16.10.9–10.
20 Proc., Hist. 6.8.8–9. See also Pall., Dial. 9.148–57; Marc. Diac., V. Porph. 47–9; Soz., Hist. eccl. 8.13.4–6.
21 Cameron, A., The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II, YCLS 27 (1982), 217–90, at 265–6Google Scholar.
22 Compare Dig. 1.16.7, on how governors have to respond to (endless) panegyrics during their entry into a city.
23 For the importance of wit, see, e.g., Lib., Or. 19.19; Proc., Hist. 1.7.30, 7.20.23–4.
24 Chron. Pasch. a. 512.
25 Lib., Or. 19.19; cf. also 20.24.
26 Numerous authors depict tyrannical rulers as failing the test of bearing insults lightly: e.g. Jo.Mal., Chron. 12.49; SHA, Sept. Sev. 9.4–5, 14.13. See Gleason, op. cit. (n. 5), 115 for further examples.
27 Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (1940), 259–69Google Scholar: Downey, G., ‘The economic crisis at Antioch under Julian the Apostate’, in Studies in Roman Economy and Social History in Honor of A. C. Johnson (1951), 312–21Google Scholar; Petit, P., Libanius et la vie municipale à Antioche au IVe siècle après J.-C. (1955), 109–18Google Scholar; Liebeschuetz, op. cit. (n. 17), 130–1; Matthews, J., The Roman Empire of Ammianus (1989), 408–12Google Scholar; Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 275–80 (with reference to earlier literature); Woods, D., ‘Grain prices at Antioch again’, ZPE 134 (2001), 233–8Google Scholar; Rosen, K., Julian. Kaiser, Gott und Christenhasser (2006), 284–6Google Scholar. For the phenomenon, see Kohns, H.-P., Versorgungskrisen und Hungerrevolten im spätantiken Rom (1961)Google Scholar.
28 Amm. 22.14.1; Socr., Hist. eccl. 3.17.1. See Rosen, op. cit. (n. 27), 285.
29 For the distinction see Garnsey, P., Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (1988), 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Amm. 22.14.1–3.
31 Jul., Mis. 368c; Lib., Ep. 736.2, Or. 1.120, 15.19, 18.195; Soz., Hist. eccl. 5.19.1; Amm. 22.9.14.
32 Jul., Mis. 368d; Lib., Or. 16.22–5. See the chronology established by Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 308–11.
33 Jul., Mis. 350a, 368d–369a; Lib., Or. 15.21, 18.195; Amm. 22.14.1; Socr., Hist. eccl. 3.17.2; Soz., Hist. eccl. 5.19.1–3. See Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 305; Rosen, op. cit. (n. 27), 284. Ammianus probably was either present or relied on eye-witnesses for his report: cf. Sabbah, G., La méthode d'Ammien Marcellin (1978), 309–11Google Scholar.
34 Jul., Mis. 369c–d; Lib., Or. 16.15.
35 The key passage is Jul., Mis. 361d–364a. See, in particular, the works referred to in n. 3.
36 Jul., Mis. 361d–362d.
37 Jul., Mis. 344b–c; cf. also 345c, 363c, 364a. Trans. W. C. Wright.
38 Confirmation of this initial show of public enthusiasm can be found in Lib., Or. 15.45, 48, 76. These passages nuance the traditional argument that Antioch was ideologically incompatible with Julian's projects and that his religious activities in Antioch were from the outset doomed, based on later passages from the Misopogon. The later lack of attendance may also have been the result of the alienation between Julian and the city.
39 On 22 October the temple of Daphne burnt down. Whether it was arson and who was guilty, was never established (Amm. 22.13.1; Jul., Mis. 361c; Lib., Ep. 1376).
40 See also Jul., Mis. 351d, 363d.
41 Jul., Mis. 344d, 345d, 355c–356d, 364a–d, 366c.
42 Like straight insults, famosi were a common phenomenon in Late Antiquity: see Lib., Or. 19.15, 20.25–6; CTh 9.34; Theod. Lect., Hist. eccl. 490; Joh. Ant., Chron. Fr. 273.1; Joh. Lyd., Mag. 3.57.4. On a sixth-century instance, see Meier, M., ‘Der “Kaiser der Luppa”. Aspekte der politischen Kommunikation im 6. Jh. n. Chr.’, Hermes 129 (2001), 410–30Google Scholar.
43 For the theatre as a forum for ritualized communication, see Eus., VC 2.61.5; Lib., Or. 19.14; Soz., Hist. eccl. 4.11.12, 7.15.8; Proc., Hist. 5.6.4. Contrary to what is assumed by Rosen, op. cit. (n. 27), 384, Julian did not close the theatre, as some other emperors did (e.g. Theodosius: Lib., Or. 20.6). Rosen, op. cit. (n. 27), 288 suggests that further popular dissatisfaction was caused by the disruption of public order that was a consequence of the huge sacrificial feasts, mainly for soldiers, organized by Julian (Amm. 22.12.6; Lib., Or. 12.89–91).
44 Jul., Mis. 344a. For the idea of Julian as a princeps clausus, see Rosen, op. cit. (n. 27), 286.
45 Long, J., ‘Structures of irony in Julian's Misopogon’, AncW 24 (1993), 15–23, at 20Google Scholar.
46 Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 311.
47 As was done by Browning, op. cit. (n. 2), 158.
48 Jul., Ep. 58 (Wright) = 98 (Bidez/Cumont); Lib., Or. 16.1, Ep. 802 (Foerster) = 98 (Norman); Amm. 23.2.3–5.
49 Ammianus, for example, mentions an insult that targeted Julian's inflated behaviour and compared him to Cercops, an ape-like dwarf that takes himself for a giant (22.14.3). He also notes that Julian was called a slaughterer (victimarius) rather than a priest (sacricola). Given the dense mythological references in this passage (cf. Boeft, J. den, Drijvers, J. W., Hengst, D. den and Teitler, H. C., Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXII (1995), 243–5Google Scholar), Ammianus is likely to be relying directly on one of the craftily composed famosi that circulated at that time.
50 Julian also refers elsewhere to his family and the Constantinian dynasty (Mis. 340a, 352b, 357b–c).
51 Jul., Mis. 342a–d, 347a–348b, 357c, 360c–361b.
52 Jul., Mis. 347a–349b.
53 Jul., Mis. 340a–343b, 351a.
54 Jul., Mis. 353a–355a. On the use of the term ‘Hellene’ in Julian, see Cameron, A., ‘Julian and Hellenism’, AncW 24 (1993), 25–9Google Scholar.
55 Jul., Mis. 346d, 353b–354d, 355d–357a. On these virtues in the Misopogon, see Kabiersch, J., Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian (1960)Google Scholar; Prato and Micalella, op. cit. (n. 3), 16*; Rosen, op. cit. (n. 3).
56 Jul., Mis. 353d: Plato, Laws 730d; Mis. 354b: Laws 729b; Mis. 355b: Rep. 563b–c; Mis. 359c. For further Platonic references, see Janka, M., ‘Quod philosophia fuit, satura facta est. Julians Misopogon zwischen Gattungskonvention und Sitz im Leben’, in Schäfer, C. (ed.), Kaiser Julian ‘Apostata’ und die philosophische Reaktion gegen das Christentum (2008), 177–206, at 198–203Google Scholar, who points to Jul., Mis. 340c, 341d–342a: Plato, Symp. 185c, 188e, and Mis. 345b–c: Apol. 17b.
57 This representation has often been followed by scholars: see the references in n. 3 and Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 190. The temptation to do so is enhanced by the fact that our Christian sources have a parallel agenda when depicting Julian as a persecutor: see Penella, R., ‘Julian the persecutor in fifth century church historians’, AncW 24 (1993), 31–43Google Scholar; Leppin, H., Von Constantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II. Das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret (1996), 72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 Bouffartigue, J., L'empereur Julien et la culture de son temps (1992), 240–55Google Scholar; Billerbeck, M., ‘L'empereur bourru: Julien et le Dyscolos de Ménandre’, in Hering, G. (ed.), Dimensionen griechischer Literatur und Geschichte. Festschrift für Pavlos Tzermias zum 65. Geburtstag (1993), 37–51Google Scholar; Janka, op. cit. (n. 56); Quiroga, A., ‘Julian's Misopogon and the subversion of rhetoric’, AnTard 17 (2009), 127–35Google Scholar.
59 For parallels, see, e.g., Them., Or. 18.2–3; Lib., Or. 12.5; Pan. Lat. 9.2.3.
60 The genre is alluded to in Jul., Mis. 349a. See Geffcken, op. cit. (n. 3), 116; Marcone, A., ‘Un panegirico rovesciato. Pluralità di modelli e contaminazione letteraria nel Misopogon giulianeo’, REAug 30 (1984), 226–39Google Scholar; Gleason, op. cit. (n. 5), 106; Long, op. cit. (n. 45), 17–18.
61 Lib., Or. 11.27–8, 240–8, and 260–2.
62 Him., Or. 39.16.
63 Nobody who has read his Letter to the Athenians or the Caesares can fail to see that the emperor consciously tried to impose his view on the past — not to forget the numerous ‘embedded’ historians that accompanied Julian on his Persian campaign: see Sabbah, op. cit. (n. 33), 293–320; Rosen, op. cit. (n. 27), 54–69 and passim.
64 The reality of this has been questioned, on the basis of its length, by F. Paschoud, rev. C. Prato and D. Micalella, Giuliano imperatore. Mispogone (1979), Latomus 43 (1984), 672. See also Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 8), 454–5, who suggests only the last part was posted.
65 cf. Downey, op. cit. (n. 3); Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 8), 752–5.
66 Echoed in Zos., Hist. 3.11.4–5. For the dependence on Eunapius, see Paschoud, F., Zosime. Histoire nouvelle. Tome II. 1re partie (Livre III) (1979), 101Google Scholar.
67 Jul., Mis. 337b, 338c, 364c, 366c, cf. also 371a.
68 Julian's clemency as expressed in the Misopogon is a topos of Julian-research since, at least, Chateaubriand (Etudes historiques (1831), vol. 2, 110, quoted by Bidez, op. cit. (n. 3), 290).
69 Harries, J., Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (1999), 137–52Google Scholar; Nuffelen, P. Van, ‘The unstained rule of Theodosius II: A late antique panegyrical topos and moral concern’, in Houdt, T. Van, Partoens, G. and Roskam, G. (eds), Imago Virtutis (2004), 229–56Google Scholar.
70 See the consequences for Antioch listed by Lib., Or. 15.55–63 and 16.8–14.
71 See Jul., Ep. 198 (Bidez/Cumont); Him., Or. 39.5; Lib., Or. 18.187, 33.22. Scholars often think civic competition had died out in the fourth century: Petit, op. cit. (n. 27), 170 n. 11; E. Bliembach, Libanios. Oratio 18 (Epitaphios). Kommentar (Par. 111–308) (1976), 108. Reduction of rank and prestige of a city was a real punishment: see Soz., Hist. eccl. 5.4.1–5; SHA, Hadr. 14; Sev. 9.4–5.
72 Libanius’ own indications are confusing. Or. 16.1–2 refers to talks to the emperor (πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα διείλεγμαι) and he claims to have obtained pardon for Antioch τὸ μὲν γὰρ εἴχε συγγνώμην καὶ τετύχηκε καλῶς ποιοῦν. A. F. Norman, Libanius. Selected Works. Volume 1: The Julianic Orations (1969), 211 note b interprets this as numerous personal interventions. But in Or. 1.126–7, Libanius claims to have had success in an oration for his home city, an oration which is not attested elsewhere. As Libanius was not present when the Antiochene embassy encountered Julian in Litarba (Ep. 802 (Foerster) = 98 (Norman)), it cannot refer to that encounter either. While Libanius may have had informal conversations while Julian was still in Antioch, no other source knows of any success: as Ammianus notes (23.2.4), Julian remained implacable when confronted with the embassy of the city. Libanius may simply be fabulating to enhance his own rôle.
73 Lib., Or. 1.132; Amm. 23.2.4.
74 Jul., Ep. 98 (Bidez/Cumont); Lib., Or. 16.1.
75 Lib., Or. 15.1; Amm. 22.14.2, 23.2.4: see Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 8), 747–51. The exceptions are Zos., Hist. 3.11.4, and Soz., Hist. eccl. 5.19.3, on which see below. Julian's anger was noted by, e.g., Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 2), 13, 104; Matthews, op. cit. (n. 27), 409.
76 den Boeft et al., op. cit. (n. 49), 240–1. Sabbah, op. cit. (n. 33), 242 suggests a transposition for literary reasons.
77 Πρὸς ’Αντιοχέας περὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλέως ὀργῆς. For the date of publication, see the Appendix.
78 Lib., Or. 16.19: πρόφασιν. For the well-known topos of the praeteritio, see Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (1990), 436–7Google Scholar.
79 Oliensis, E., Horace and the Rhetoric of Authority (1998), 127–54Google Scholar.
80 Lib., Ep. 811 (Foerster) = 100 (Norman). Trans. Norman. See also Ep. 1342 (Foerster).
81 Lib., Ep. 815 (Foerster) = 101 (Norman) refers to despondency in Antioch, Ep. 1220 (Foerster) to the joy in the city after Julian's death.
82 Libanius explicitly rejects the literary form of the Misopogon: he requests that Julian should not engage in debate with him during his speech: ‘“today you must show yourself a man of merit” (Aristoph., Ach. 440), rather than of rhetoric’ (15.14). This is a rejection of the dialectic mode and the sophistic nature of the Misopogon (cf. Mis. 345b). For other verbal links, see Lib., Or. 15.55, 75: Jul., Mis. 364c; Or. 15.19: Mis. 346b; Or. 15.22: Mis. 368d; Or. 15.25–6: Mis. 367c; Or. 15.63: Mis. 355d; Or. 15.67: Mis. 354b; Or. 15.73: Mis. 364d.
83 Lib., Or. 15.77. Trans. Norman.
84 The Misopogon accuses the populace and the élite alike, see e.g. 369d–370a. In Oration 16, Libanius equally takes care to deflect criticism from the élite (44) and clearly sets out that the élite is at best to blame for a failure of leadership, but not for actually doing anything wrong.
85 See also Lib., Or. 15.66.
86 Lib., Or. 15.55–63, 75.
87 Lib., Or. 15.25–6, picking up on Jul., Mis. 367c.
88 Syggnome: 15.22, 43, 54, 70–1; hemerotes, philanthropia: 15.28; eleos, 15.38–9. That anger is an unkingly attitude is a commonplace of Roman panegyrics: e.g. Claudian, IV cos Hon. 259 contrasts ira and virtus.
89 Libanius may have taken inspiration from Julian's description of the aims of his own education in Mis. 353b–c: to become ‘better than my former self’.
90 This refers to the publication of the Misopogon (see Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 224–5) and not to the burning of the temple of Apollo (22 October a.d. 362), as argued, among others, by Norman, op. cit. (n. 72), 196 note a.
91 Lib., Or. 15.1. Trans. Norman, modified.
92 For the largely posthumous projection of Alexander on Julian, see Fox, R. Lane, ‘The itinerary of Alexander: Constantius to Julian’, CQ 47 (1997), 239–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 248–52, against earlier scholars such as Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 2), 1.
93 Foerster, G. and Münscher, K., art. Libanios, in RE 12,2 (1925), 2485–2551, at 2501Google Scholar; Norman, op. cit. (n. 72), 205 note b argued that the finished text was sent to Julian. Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 221, 225 suggests that Libanius had the text ready for when Julian would return. Both views falter on grounds of chronology and are impossible to reconcile with Libanius’ explicit statement that he was writing the speech when Julian died: Or. 17.37: ἐγὼ μὲν ἐδημιούργουν λόγον διαλλαγῶν τῶν πρὸς τὴν πόλιν φάρμακον.
94 P. Van Nuffelen, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les Histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène (2004), 8.
95 Socr., Hist. eccl. 3.17.8: ἀλλὰ τουτοὺς μὲν τοὺς λόγους φασὶ γράψαντα τὸν σοφιστὴν μηκέτι εἰς πόλλους εἰρηκέναι.
96 Closeness is emphasized in Or. 15.6–13 and 82–6. Free speech (παρρησία) is claimed in Or. 15.12–13.
97 Jul., Mis. 354c claims Libanius as one of his own; for the suspicions, see Lib., Ep. 815 (Foerster) = 101 (Norman). Libanius had actively sought the patronage of Julian (see Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 77–187), so resentment was not surprising.
98 See Lib., Or. 19 and 20; Soz., Hist. eccl. 7.23.2–3. The embellished accounts of the anger of Theodosius I, the massacre in Thessalonica, and his subsequent repentance (a.d. 390) have the aim of saving the emperor through this panegyrical device (Ruf., Hist. eccl. 11.18; Paulin., V. Ambr. 24; Soz., Hist. eccl. 7.25): see McLynn, N., Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (1994), 315–30Google Scholar.
99 For the composition of the Epitaphios after 11 October a.d. 368, see P. Van Nuffelen, ‘Earthquakes in A.D. 363–368 and the date of Libanius, Oratio 18’, CQ 56 (2006), 657–61, arguing against Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 255, and Felgentreu, F., ‘Zur Datierung der 18. Rede des Libanios’, Klio 86 (2004), 206–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
100 Norman, op. cit. (n. 72), 279 note b; Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 260–8.
101 Ammianus: Sabbah, op. cit. (n. 33), 258–77; Socrates and Sozomen: Van Nuffelen, op. cit. (n. 94), App. V; Eunapius: Baldini, A., Ricerche sulla storia di Eunapio di Sardi (1984), 206–7Google Scholar.
102 Zosimus describes the Misopogon in nearly identical terms to Sozomen (Hist. 3.11.4: λόγον ἀστειότατον). Other passages too suggest a dependence of the church historian on Eunapius: Blockley, R. C., The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire (1981), Vol. 1, 2Google Scholar. The link is disputed by Buck, D. F., ‘Did Sozomen use Eunapius’ Histories?’, MH 56 (1999), 15–25Google Scholar, but he cannot explain away all parallels.
103 Lib., Ep. Ep. 1220, 1453 (Foerster). This did not mean they liked the new emperor Jovian: Eun., Hist. Fr. 29.1 (Blockley).
104 Socr., Hist. eccl. 3.17.9: στίγματα διηνεκῆ τῇ ’Αντιοχέων πόλει κατέλιπεν.
105 Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 201–2.
106 Wiemer, op. cit. (n. 4), 221–7. He is followed by Stenger, op. cit. (n. 3), 267.
107 The traditional view of a private delivery for Oration 16 is therefore correct: Foerster, G., Libanii opera. Vol. II: Orationes XII–XXV (1904), 155 n. 1, and Norman, op. cit. (n. 72), xxxiiGoogle Scholar.
108 Full references to Alexander's actions can be found in PLRE I, 40–1.
109 Lib., Ep. 811 (Foerster) = 100 (Norman).
110 Eun., Hist. Fr. 29.1.
