Julianus
historical.
1. A Roman general, who distinguished himself in the war against the Dacians in the reign of the emperor Domitian. (D. C. 67.10.)
2. A distinguished Roman of the time of the emperor Commodus, who at first highly esteemed him, and appointed him praefectus praetorio, but afterwards treated him most disgracefully, and at last ordered him to be put to death. (D. C. 72.14; Lamprid. Commod. 7, 11.) [L.S]
(Ἰουλιανός), literary.
1. A Chaldaean, surnamed Theurgus, i. e. the magician, lived in the time of the emperor M. Aurelius, whose army he is said to have saved from destruction by a shower of rain, which he called down by his magic power. Suidas (s. v.) attributes to him also several works, viz. Δεουργικά, τελεστικά, and a collection of oracles in hexameter verse. His pursuits show that he was a New Platonist, and it would seem that he enjoyed a great reputation, since Porphyrius wrote upon him a work in four books, which is lost. A. Mai has discovered in Vatican MSS. three fragments relating to astrological subjects (Nova Script. Class. Collect. ii. p. 675), and attributed to one Julianus of Laodiceia, whom Mai considers to be the same as Julianus the Magician.
2. Surnamed the Egyptian, because he was for a time governor of Egypt. Works
The Greek Anthology contains seventy-one epigrams which bear his name, and in which the author appears as an imitator of earlier poems of the same kind. They are mostly of a descriptive character, and refer to works of art. Julianus probably lived in the reign of Justinian, for among his epigrams there are two upon Hypatius, the nephew of the emperor Anastasius, who was put to death A. D. 532, by the command of Justinian. Another epigram is written upon Joannes, the grandson of Hypatius. Further Information
Brunck, Anal. 2.493; Jacobs, Anthol. Graec. 3.195 comp. xiii. p. 906.
3. Of Caesareia in Cappadocia, was a contemporary of Aedesius, and a disciple of Maximus of Ephesus. He was one of the sophists of the time, and taught rhetoric at Athens, where he enjoyed a great reputation, and attracted youths from all parts of the world, who were anxious to hear him and receive his instruction. It is not known whether Julianus wrote any works or not. (Eunap. Vit. Soph. p. 68, &c. ed. Boisson., and Wyttenbach's notes, Ibid. p. 250, &c.)
4. A Greek grammarian, who, according to Photius (Bibl. cod. 150), wrote a dictionary to the ten Attic orators, entitled Λεξικὸν των παρὰ τοῖς δέκα ῥήτορσι λέξεων κατὰ στοιχεῖον; like other similar works, is entirely lost. Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. vol. vi. p. 245) considers its author to be the same as the Julianus to whom Phrynichus dedicates the fourth book of his work. [L.S]
a friend and contemporary of A. Gellius, who speaks of him as a public teacher of oratory, and praises him for his eloquence as well as for his knowledge of early literature. He appears to have also devoted himself to grammatical studies, the fruits of which he collected in his Commentdarii, which, however, are lost. (Gel. 4.1. 9.15, 15.1, 18.5, 19.9, 20.9.) [L.S]
was consul in A. D. 38, the second year of the reign of Donitian. (D. C. 59.9; Frontin. de Aquaed. 13. [L.S]
[Didius.]
surnamed Eclanensis for the sake of distinction, is conspicuous in the ecclesiastical history of the fifth century as one of the ablest supporters of Pelagius. His father, Memorius or Memor, who is believed to have presided over the see of Capua, was connected by close friendship with St. Augustine and Paulinus of Nola, the latter of whom celebrated the nuptials of the son with Ia, daughter of Aemilius, bishop of Beneventum, in a poem breathing the warmest affection towards the different members of the family. Julianus early in life devoted himself to the duties of the priesthood, and after passing through the subordinate grades of reader, deacon, and probably presbyter also, was ordained to the episcopal charge of Eclanum in Apulia, by Innocentius, about A. D. 416. No suspicion seems to have attached to his orthodoxy until he refused to sign the Tractoria or public denunciation of Coelestius and Pelagius, forwarded by Zosimus in 418 to the authorities of the Christian church throughout the world. This act of contumacy, in which he was supported by many prelates of Southern Italy and Sicily, was soon followed by the banishment of himself and his adherents in terms of the imperial edict. Quitting his native country, he repaired to Constantinople, but being driven from thence, took refuge in Cilicia with Theodorus of Mopsuestia, with whom he remained for several years. In 428 we find him again at Constantinople, patronised by Nestorius, who addressed two letters to pope Coelestinus on behalf of the exile. But in 429 Marius Mercator arrived, and by the charges contained in the Commonitorium [Marius Mercator], presented to Theodosius, procured the expulsion of the heretics from the capital of the East. Having been formally condemned by the great council of Ephesus, in 431, Julianus appears to have lived in obscurity until 439, when he made a last desperate effort to recover his station and privileges; but the attempt having been frustrated by the firmness of Sixtus II., his name from this time forward disappears entirely from history, if we except the statement of Gennadius, who records that he died under Valentinian, and therefore not later than A. D. 455, having previously swelled the number of his followers by distributing his whole fortune among the poor, to alleviate their sufferings during a famine. Works
No work of Julianus undoubtedly genuine has been transmitted to us entire, and his merits as an author are known only from mutilated fragments contained in the writings of his theological opponents. We find traces of the following :-- 1 Epistola ad Zosimum
Composed probably in 418, quoted by Marius Mercator in the sixth and ninth chapters of his Subnotationes [Marius Mercator]. Editions
The different passages are collected and arranged by Garnier (Diss. V. ad Mar. Miercat. vol. i. p. 333). 2. Epistola communis ei cum plurimis Pelagianis episcopis quam Thessalonicam miserunt.
Such is the title given by St. Augustine to the epistle which he undertook to refute, in four books, addressed to pope Bonifacius. Editions
The fragments will be found placed in order in Garnier's edition of Mercator. See above. 3. Libri IV, ad Turbantium episcopum, adversus librum primum Augustini de Concupiscentia,
Written about 419. Editions
Considerable fragments, of the first book especially, are included in the second book of Augustine, De Nuptiis, in his Libri VI. contra Julianum, and in his Opus Imperfectum. (Garnier, App. ad Diss. VI. de Scriptis pro Haeresi Pelagiana, p. 388, and Diss. VI. p. 349.) 4. Liber de Constantiae Bono contra Perfidiam Manichaei,
written, according to (arnier, after the expulsion of Julianus from his bishopric. Editions
A few fragments have been preserved by Beda. (See Garnier, as above.) 5. Libri VIII. ad Florum Episcopum adrersus secundum librum Augustini de Nuptiis et Concupiscentia,
written, according to Garnier, in Cilicia, and published about 426. Editions
The first five books, or perhaps six, are given entire in the Opus imperfectum of Augustine. (Garnier, Mercatoris Op. vol. i. p. 34.) 6. Liber de Amore, sive Commentarius in Cantica Canticorum
mentioned by Beda alone, who remarks that it was divided into two books, the first being devoted to a dissertation on Love, the second embracingc the commentary. Editions
For the fragments and various speculations concerning the history of this piece, see Gamlier, Append. ad Diss. VI. vol i. p. 388. Other Works
The Epistola ad Demetriadem, which really belongs to Pelagius [Pelagius, and the Libellus Fidei, published from a Verona MS. by Garnier, 8vo. Par. 1668, have been erroneously ascribed to Julianus. Further Information
Gennad. de Vir. Illust. 45. Every thing that can be ascertained with regard to Julianus or his productions will be found in the dissertations attached to Garnier's edition of Marius Mercator, and in the annotations upon those works of St. Augustine directed specially against this heretic. See also Voss. Histor. Pelag. 1.6; Schonemann, Bibl. Patr. Lat. vol. 2.18, where much information is exhibited in a condensed form. [W.R]
surnamed Apostata, "the Apostate," Roman emperor, A. D. 361-363, was born at Constantinople on the 17th of November, A. D. 331 (332?). He was the son of Julius Constantius by his second wife, Basilina, the grandson of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, and the nephew of Constantine the Great. [See the Genealogical Table, Vol. I. pp. 831, 832.]
Julian and his elder brother, Flavius Julius Gallus, who was the son of Julius Constantius by his first wife, Galla, were the only members of the imperial family whose lives were spared by Constantius II., the son of Constantine the Great, when, upon his accession, he ordered the massacre of all the male descendants of Constantine Chlorus and his second wife, Theodora. Both Gallus and Julian were of too tender an age to be dangerous to Constantius, who accordingly spared their lives, but had them educated in strict confinement at different places in Ionia and Bithynia, and afterwards in the castle of Macellum near Caesareia: and we know from Julian's own statement in his epistle to the senate and people of Athens, that, although they were treated with all the honours due to their birth, they felt most unhappy in their royal prison, being surrounded by spies who were to report the least of their words and actions to a jealous and bloodthirsty tyrant. However, they received a careful and learned education, and were brought up in the principles of the Christian religion: their teachers were Nicocles Luco, a grammarian, and Ecebolus, a rhetorician, who acted under the superintendence of the eunuch Mardonius, probably a pagan in secret, and of Eusebius, an Arian, afterwards bishop of Nicomedeia. Gallus was the first who was released from his slavery by being appointed Caesar in A. D. 351, and governor of the East, and it was through his mediation that Julian obtained more liberty. The conduct of Gallus in his government, and his execution by Constantius in A. D. 354, are detailed elsewhere. [Constantius II., p. 848.] Julian was now in great danger, and the emperor would probably have sacrificed him to his jealousy but for the circumstance that he had no male issue himself, and that Julian was consequently the only other surviving male of the imperial family. Constantius was satisfied with removing Julian from Asia to Italy, and kept him for some time in close confinement at Milan, where he lived surrounded by spies, and in constant fear of sharing the fate of his brother. Owing to the mediation of the empress Eusebia, an excellent woman, who loved Julian with the tenderness of a sister, the young prince obtained an interview view Constantius, and having succeeded in cahniag the cmperor's suspicions, was allowed to lead a private life at Athens (A. D. 355). Athens was then the centre of Greek learning, and there Julian spent short but delightful period in intercourse with the most celebrated philosophers, scholars, and artists of the time, and in the society of a company of young men who were devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, and among whom was Gregory Nazianzen, who became afterwards so celebrated as a Christian orator. Among those learned men Julian was not the least in renown, and he attracted universal attention both by his talents and his knowledge. The study of Greek literature and philosophy was his principal and favourite pursuit. He had been brought up by Greeks and among Greeks, and his predilection for whatever was Greek was of course very natural ; but he did not neglect Latin literature, and we Jearn from Ammianus Marcellinus (16.5), that he had a fair knowledge of the Latin language, which was then stil spoken at the court of Constantinople. While Julian lived in happy retirement at Athens, the cmperor was bent down by the weight of public affairs, and the empire being exposed to the invasions of the Persians in the east, and of the Germans and Sarmatians in the west and the north, he followed the advice of Eusebia, in opposition to his eunuchs, in conferring the rank of Caesar upon Julian, who was accordingly recalled from Athens and summoned to Milan, where Constantius was residing. Julian obeyed reluctantly : the Greek Minerva had more charms for him than the Roman Jupiter, and he was too well acquainted with the mythology of his ancestors not to know that even the embraces of Jupiter are sometimes fatal. On the 6th of November, A. D. 355, Julian was solemnly proclaimed Caesar, and received, as a guarantee of the emperor's sincerity, the hand of his sister Helena, who was the youngest child of Constantine the Great. At the same time he was invested with the government of the provinces beyond the Alps, but some time elapsed before he set out for Gaul, where he was to reside, and during this time he began to accustom himself to behave with that composure and artihcial dignity which suited a person of his exalted station, but which corresponded so little with his taste and habits. When he first entered upon public life he was timid and clumsy, and he used afterwards to laugh at his own awkwardness on those occasions. The internal peace of Gaul was still suffering from the consequences of the revolt of Sylvanus, and her frontiers were assailed by the Germans, who had crossed the Rhine, burnt Strassburg, Trèves, Cologne, and many other flourishing cities, and made devastating inroads into the midland provinces of Gaul. Accustomed to the quiet occupations of a scholar, Julian seemed little fitted for the command in the field, but he found an experienced lieutenant in the person of the veteran general Sallustius, and the wisdom he had learned in the schools of Greece was not merely theoretical philosophy, but virtue : temperate to the extreme, he despised the luxuries of a Roman court, and his food and bed were not better than those of a common soldier. In his administration he was just and forbearing; and never discouraged by adversity nor inflated by success, he showed himself worthy to reign over others, because he could reign over himself.
Julian arrived in Gaul late in A. D. 355, and, after having stayed the winter at Vienna (Vienne in Dauphiné), he set out in the spring of 356 to drive the barbarians back over the Rhine. In this campaign he fought against the Alemanni, the invaders of Southern Gaul. He made their first acquaintance near Rheims, and paid dearly for it : they fell unexpectedly upon his rear, and two legions were cut to pieces. But as he nevertheless advanced towards the Rhine, it seems that the principal disadvantage of his defeat was only a loss of men. In the following spring (357) he intended to cross the Rhine, and to penetrate into the country of the Alemanni; and he would have executed his plan but for the strange conduct of the Roman general Barbation, who was on his march from Italy with an army of 25,000, or perhaps 30,000 men, in order to effect his junction with Julian. A sufficient number of boats was collected at Basel for the purpose of throwing a bridge over the Rhine, and provisions were kept there for supporting his troops, but barbation remained inactive on the left bank, and proved his treacherous designs by burning both the ships and the provisions. In consequence of this, Julian was compelled to adopt the defensive, and the Alemanni, headed by their king Chnodomarius, crossed the Rhine, and took up a position near Strassburg (August, A. D. and took up a position near Strassburg strong : Julian had only 13,000 veterans; but he did not decline the engagement, and, after a terrible conflict, he gained a decisive victory, which was chiefly owing to the personal valour of the young prince. Six thousand of the barbarians remained on the field, perhaps as many were slain in their flight or drowned in the Rhine, and their king Chnodomarius was made prisoner. The loss of the Romans in this memorable battle is stated by Ammianus Marcellinus to have been only 243 privates and four officers; but this is not credible. Chnodomarius was well treated by Julian, who sent him to the court of Constantius. [Chnodomarius.]
Immediately after this victory Julian invaded the territory of the Alemanni on the right bank of the Rhine, but more for the purpose of exhibiting his power than of making any permanent conquests, for he advanced only a few miles, and then returned and led his troops against the Franks, who had conquered the tract between the Seheldt, the Maas, and the Lower Rhine. Some of the Frankish tribes he drove back into Germany, and others he allowed to remain in Gaul, on condition of their submitting to the Roman authority. Upon this he invaded Germany a second time, in 358, and a third time in 359, in order to make the Alemanni desist from all further attempts upon Gaul, and he not only succeeded, but returned with 20,000 Romans, whom the Alemanni had taken, and whom he compelled them to give up.
The peace of Gaul being now established, Julian exerted himself to rebuild the cities that had been ruined on the frontiers of Germany : among those rebuilt and fortified by him were Bingen, Andernach, Bonn, and Neuss, and, without doubt, Cologne also, as this city had been likewise laid in ashes by the Germans. As the constant inroads of the barbarians had interrupted all agricultural pursuits in those districts, there was a great scarcity of corn, but Julian procured an abundant supply by sending six hundred barges to England, which came back with a sufficient quantity for both grinding and sowing. The minimum of the quantity of corn thus exported from England has been calculated at 120,000 quarters, and it has been justly observed that the state of agriculture in this country must have been in an advanced condition, since so much corn could be exported nearly altogether at the same time. Julian bestowed the same care upon the other provinces of Gaul, and the country evidently recovered under his administration, although the power with which he was invested was by no means extensive enough to check the system of rapacity and oppression which characterises the government of the later Roman emperors. His usual residence was Paris: he caused the large island in the Seine, which is now called l'île de la Cité, and whereupon stood ancient Paris or Lutetia, to be surrounded by a stone wall and towers, and he built the Thermae Juliani, a palace with baths, the extensive remains of which, " les thermes de Julien," are still visible in the Rue de la Harpe, between the palace of Cluny and the School of Medicine.
While Julian became more and more popular in the provinces entrusted to his administration, and his fame was spreading all over the empire, Constantius once more gave way to the suggestions of jealousy and distrust, and believed that Julian aimed at popularity in order to gain for himself the supreme authority. It happened that in A. D. 360 the eastern provinces were again threatened by the Persians. Constantius commanded Julian to send to the frontiers of Persia four of his best legions and a number of picked soldiers from his other troops, apparently that he might be able apprehend him, which it was impossible to do while he was surrounded by so many thousands devoted warriors. This order surprised Julian in April 360: to obey it was to expose Gaul to new inroads of the Germans, and Britain to the ravages of the Scots and Picts, whose incursions had assumed such a dangerous character that Julian just despatched Lupicinus to defend the island; but to disobey the order was open revolt. His soldiers also were unwilling to march into Asia; but Julian, notwithstanding the dangers that awaited him, resolved to obey, and endeavoured to persuade his troops to submit quietly to the will of their master. His endeavours were in vain. In the night large bodies of soldiers surprised the palace of Julian, and proclaimed him emperor. He had hid himself in his apartments; but they soon discovered him, dragged him, though respectfully, before the assembled troops, and compelled him to accept the crown. Upon this he despatched Pentadius and Eutherius with a conciliatory message to Constantius, in which, however, he positively demanded to be acknowledged as Augustus, and to be invested with the supreme authority in those provinces over which he had ruled as Caesar, viz. Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The conditions of Julian were haughtily declined; and after a considerable time had elapsed in fruitless negotiations, which Julian employed in making two more expeditions beyond the Rhine against the Franks and the Alemanni, he at last resolved to wage open war, and to march upon Constantinople. His army was numerous and well disciplined, and the frontier along the Rhine in an excellent state of defence: his troops, who had refused leaving Gaul without him, now joyfully left it with him. Meanwhile, Constantius likewise collected a strong army, and gave directions for the defence of his capital from Antioch, from whence he had superintended the Persian war. Informed of his plans, Julian resolved to thwart them by quickness and energy. At Basel on the Rhine he divided his army into two corps: one, commanded by Novitta, was to march through Rhaetia and Noricum; the other, under the orders of Jovius and Jovinus, was to cross the Alps and march through the north-eastern corner of Italy: both divisions were to unite at Sirmium, a town on the Savus, now Save. Julian, at the head of a small but chosen body of 3000 veterans, plunged into the wildernesses of the Marcian, now Black Forest; and for some time the rival of Constantius seemed to be lost in those dark glens whence issue the sources of the Danube. But when Novitta, Jovius and Jovinus arrived at Sirmium, they be held, to their joy and astonishment, the active Julian with his band, who had descended the Danube and had already defeated the extreme outposts of Lucilian, the lieutenant of Constantius in those regions.
From Sirmium Julian moved upon Constantinople: the officers of Constantius fled before him, but the inhabitants received him with acclamations of joy; and at Athens, Rome, and other important cities, he was either publicly or privately acknowledged as emperor, having previously sent explanatory letters to the authorities of those distant places. Informed of the unexpected appearance of Julian on the Danube, Constantius set out from Syria to defend his capital; and a terrible civil war threatened to desolate Italy and the East, to when Constantius suddenly died at Mopsocrene in Cilicia, on the third of November, A. D. 361, leaving the whole empire to the undisputed posses sion of Julian. On the 11th of December following, Julian made his triumphal entrance into Constantinople. Shortly afterwards the mortal remains of Constantius arrived in the Golden Horn, and had were buried by Julian in the church of the Holy Apostles with great solemnity and magnificence.
While Julian thus gave a Christian burial to the body of his rival, he had long ceased to be a Christian himself. According to Julian's own statement (Epist. ii.), he was a Christian up to his twentieth year; and the manner in which he praises his tutor, Mardonius, seems to imply that Mardonius and the philosopher Maximus first caused him to love the religion of the ancient Greeks, without, however, precisely estranging him from the Christian religion, which seems to have been the effect of his study of the ancient Greek philosophers. The vile hypocrisy of the base and cruel Constantius, the conviction of Julian that Con stantine the Great had at first protected, and afterwards embraced, Christianity from mere political motives, the persecuting spirit manifested equally by the Orthodox and Arians against one another,-- had also a great share in the conversion of Julian. During ten years he dissembled his apostacy, which was, however, known to many of his friends, and early suspected by his own brother Gallus and it was not till he had succeeded to the throne that he publicly avowed himself a pagan. Our space does not allow us to enter into the details of his apostacy, and we must refer the reader to the sources cited below. His apostasy was no sooner known than the Christians feared a cruel persecution, and the heathens hoped that paganism would be forced upon all who were not heathens; but they were beth disappointed by an edict of Julian, in which he proclaimed a perfect toleration of all parties. He was not, however, impartial in his conduct towards the Christians, since he preferred pagans as his civil and military officers, forbade the Christians to teach rhetoric and grammar in the schools, and, in order to annoy them, allowed the Jews to rebuild their great temple at Jerusalem * Respecting the alleged miracle which interrupted the Jews in this work, see the judicious remarks in Lardner's Jewish and Heathen Testinonies; vol. iv., and compelled the followers of Jesus to pay money towards the erection of pagan temples, and, in some instances, to assist in building them. Had Julian lived longer he would have seen that his apostacy was not followed by those effects, either religious or political, which he flattered himself would take place: he would have learnt that paganism, as he understood it, was not the religion of the great mass of pagans, and that paganism, as it actually existed, was a rotten institution, destitute of all religious and moral discipline; and he would have witnessed that, however divided the Christians were, there was something better and healthier in Christianity than futile subjects for subtle controversies.
Soon after his accession Julian set out for Antioch, where he remained some time busy in organising a powerful army for the invasion, and perhaps subjugation, of Persia. The people of Antioch received him coolly: they were Christians, but also the most frivolous and luxurious people in the East, and they despised the straightforward and somewhat rustic manners of an emperor who had formed his character among stern Celts and Germans. At Antioch Julian made the acquaintance of the orator Libanius; but the latter was unable to reconcile the emperor to the sort of life which prevailed in that splendid city. He therefore withdrew to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he took up his winter-quarters. In the following spring (March, 363) he set out for Persia. The different corps of his army met at Hierapolis, where they passed the Euphrates on a bridge of boats, and thence moved to Carrhae, now Ilarran, a town in Mesopotamia about fifty miles E. N. E. from Hierapolis. Julian's plan was to march upon Ctesiphon, but in order to deceive the Persian king, Sapor, he despatched Procopius and Sebastianus with 30,000 men against Nisibis (east of Carrhae), while he himself wheeled suddenly round to the south, following the course of the Euphrates on its left or Mesopotamian side. Procopius and Sebastianus were to join Arsaces Tiranus, king of Armenia, and Julian expected to effect a junction with their united forces in the environs of Ctesiphon ; but the treachery of Arsaces prevented the accomplishment of his plan, as is mentioned below [Compare Vol. I. p. 363b.]. While Julian marched along the Euphrates in a south-eastern direction, he was accompanied by a fleet of 1100 ships, fifty of which were well-armed galleys, and the rest barges, carrying a vast supply of provisions and military stores. At Circesium, situated on the confluence of the Chaboras, now the Khabur, with the Euphrates, he arrived at the Persian frontier, which rail along the lower part of the Chaboras, and he Fntered the Persian territory on the 7th of April, 363, at the head of an army of 65,000 veterans. The bridge of the Chaboras was broken down behind them by his orders, to convince the soldiers that a retreat was no plan of their master. From Circesium he continued marching along the Euphrates till he came to that narrow neck of land which separates the Euphrates from the Tigris in the latitude of Ctesiphon. This portion of the route lies partly through a dreary desert, where the Romans experienced some trifling losses from the light Persian horse, who hovered round them, and occasionally picked up stragglers or assailed the rear or the van. Previous to crossing the neck of land, Julian besieged, stormed, and burned Perisabor, a large town on the Euphrates; and while crossing that tract, he was delayed some time under the walls of Maogamalcha, which lie likewise took after a short siege and razed to the ground. Julian now accomplished a most difficult and extraordinary task: he conveyed his whole fleet across the above-mentioned neck of land, by an ancient canal called Nahar-Malcha, which, however, he was obliged to deepen before he could trust his ships in such a passage; and, as the canal joined the Tigris below Ctesiphon, he looked for and found an old cut, dug by Trajan, from Colche to a place somewhat above Ctesipllon, which, however, he was likewise compelled to make deeper and broader, so that at last his fleet run safely out into the Tigris. The canal of Nahar-Malcha is now called the canal of Sakláwíyeh, or Isa; it joins the Tigris a little below Baghdád, and it still affords a communication between the two rivers. Through a very skilful manoeuvre, he brought over his army on the left bank of the Tigris,--a passage not only extremely difficult on account of the rapid current of the Tigris, but rendered still more so through the stout resistance of a Persian army, which, however, was routed and pursued to the walls of Ctesiphon. The city would have been entered by the Romans together with the fugitive Persians, but for the death of their leader, Victor. Julian was now looking out for the arrival of Procopius and Sebastianus, and the main army of the Armenian king, Arsaces or Tiranus. He was sadly disappointed: his lieutenants did not arrive, and Tiranus arranged for a body of his Armenians to desert which had joined the Romans previously, and which now secretly withdrew from the Roman camp at Ctesiphon. Julian nevertheless began the siege of that vast city, which was defended by the flower of the Persian troops, king Sapor, with the main body of his army, not having yet arrived from the interior of Persia. Unable to take the city, and desirous of dispersing the king's army, Julian imprudently followed the advice of a Persian nobleman of great distinction, who appeared in the Roman camp under the pretext of being persecuted by Sapor, and who recommended the emperor to set out in search of the Persian king. In doing so, Julian would have been compelled to Abandon his fleet on the Tigris to the attacks of a hostile and infuriated populace: this he avoided by setting fire to his ships,--the best thing he could have done, if his march into the interior of Persia had been dictated by absolute necessity; but as he was not obliged to leave the city, even success would not have compensated for the loss of 1200 ships. In proportion as the Romans advanced eastward, the country became more and more barren, and Sapor remained invisible. The treachery of the Persian noble was discovered after his secret flight, and Julian was obliged to retreat. He took the direction of the province of Corduene. The Persians now appeared: swarms of light horse were seen hovering round the army; larger bodies followed, and ere long Sapor, with his main army, came in sight, and harassed fearfully the rear of the Romans. Still the Romans remained victorious in many a bloody engagement, especially at Maronga; but it was in the mouth of June, and the oppressive heat, and the want of water and provisions had a pernicious effect upon the troops. On the 26th of June the Roman rear was suddenly assailed by the Persians, and Julian, who commanded the van, hastened to the relief of the rear without his cuirass, the heat making a heavy armour almost insupportable. The Persians were repulsed, and fled in confusion. Julian was pursuing them with the utmost bravery, when in the middle of the mélée he was shot by an arrow, that pierced through his liver. He fell from his horse mortally wounded, and was conveyed to his tent. Feeling his death approaching, he took leave of his friends with touching words, but certainly not with that fine and elegant speech with which Ammianus Marcellinus (25.3) makes him bid farewell to the world.
Jovian was chosen emperor in his stead, on the field of battle. [Jovianus.]
We cannot enter into a long description of Juliain's character. His talents, his principles, and his deeds, were alike extraordinary. His pride was to be called by others and by himself a philosopher, yet many facts prove that he was very superstitious. Most Christian writers abused and calumniated him because he abandoned Christianity: if they had pitied him they would have acted more in accordance with that sublime precept of our religion, which teaches us to forgive our enemies. It must ever be recollected that the bigotry, the hypocrisy, and the uncharitableness, of the majority of the Christians of Julian's time, were some of the principal causes that led to his apostacy. In reading the ancient authorities, the student oughlt to bear in mind that the heathen writers extol Julian far too high, and that the Christians debase him far too low.
Julian was great as an emperor, unique as a man, and remarkable as an author. He wrote an immense number of works, consisting of orations on various subjects, historical treatises, satires, and letters : most of the latter were intended for public circulation. All these works are very elaborately composed, so much so as to afford a fatiguing and monotonous reading to those who peruse them merely for their merits as specimens of Greek literature but they are at the same time very important sources for the history and the opinions of the age on religion and philosophy. Julian also tried to write poetry, but he was no poet: lie lacks imagination, and his artificial manner of embellishing prose shows that he had no poetical vein. He was a man of reflection and thought, but possessed no creative genius. His style is remarkably pure for his time, and shows that lie had not only studied the classical Greek historians and philosophers, but had so far identified himself with his models, that there is scarcely a page in his works where we do not meet with either reminiscences from the classical writers, or visible efforts to express his ideas in the same way as they did. With this painful imitation of his classical models he often unites the exaggerated and over-elaborate style of his contemporaries, and we trace in his writings the influence of the Platonists no less than that of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and so many other writers of the golden age. There is, however, one circumstance which reconciles the reader to many of the author's defects: Julian did not merely write for writing's sake, as so many of his contemporaries did, but he shows that he had his subjects really at heart, and that in literature as well as in business his extraordinary activity arose from the wants of a powerful mind, which desired to improve itself and the world. In this respect Julian excites our sympathy much more, for instance, than the rhetorician Libanius. Editions
The following are the editions of the entire works of Julian:--Juliani Imperatoris Opera quae extant, with a Latin translation by P. Martinius and C. Cantoclarus, and the author's life by Martinius, Paris, 1583, 8vo.: Juliani Opera, quae quidem reperiri pottuerunt, omnia, Paris, 1630, 4to., by Petavius, with notes and a Latin translation. A better edition than either of the two preceding is:--Juliani Imperatoris Opera, quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig, 1696, fol., by Ezechiel Spanheim, who perused an excellent codex, which enabled him to publish a much purer text than Petavius, and he added the notes of Petavius and his translation, which he corrected, as well as an excellent commentary of his own. This edition contains 63 letters of Julian. Spanheim further added to it S. Cyrilli, Aleaandrini Archiepiscopi, contra impium Julianum Libri Decem, which is the more valuable as Cyrillus was one of the most able adversaries of Julian, as is mentioned below. Works
The following is a list of Julian's works, with the principal separate editions of each:-- I. Letters.
The first collection, published by Aldus, Venice, 1499, 4to., contains only 48 letters; Spanheim published 63 in his edition of the works of Julian; others were found in later times, four of which are printed in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec.; the last and best edition is by L. H. Heyler, Mainz, 1828, 8vo.; it contains 83 letters, with a Latin translation and a commentary of the editor.
There are besides some fragments of lost letters. Among the letters of Julian, there is also one which was written to him by his brother Gallus, in A. D. 353, who advises him to remain faithful to the Christian religion. The authenticity of several letters is contested. They treat on various subjects, and are of great importance for the history of the time. One, which was addressed to the senate and people of Athens, and in which the author explains the motives of his having taken up arms against the emperor Constantius, is an interesting and most important historical document. II. Orations. 1. Ἐγκώμιον πρὸς αὐτοκράτορα Κωνστάντιον
Ἐγκώμιον πρὸς αὐτοκράτορα Κωνστάντιον, with a Latin translation by Petavius, Paris, 1614, 8vo.: an encomium of the emperor Constantius, in which Julian is not consisteit with his usual feelings of contempt and hatred towards that emperor. In general Julian speaks very badly of the whole imperial family, and even Constantine the Great does not escape his severe censure. Wyttenbach, in the work quoted below, has written some excellent observations on this work. 2. Περὶ τῶν Αὐτοκράτορος Πράξεων, ἢ περὶ Βασιλείας
Περὶ τῶν Αὐτοκράτορος Πράξεων, ἢ περὶ Βασιλείας, two orations on the deeds and the reign of the emperor Constantius, which are of great importance for the knowledge of the time: in the complete editions. Julian wrote these orations in Gaul, and betray in many a passage his preference of paganism to Christianity, as well as his enthusiastic love of the new Platonic philosophy. 3. Εὐσεβίας τῆς βασιλίδος Ἐγκώμιον
Εὐσεβίας τῆς βασιλίδος Ἐγκώμιον, an encomium on the empress Eusebia, the patroness of Julian: ed. Petavius, Paris, 1614, 8vo. 4. Εἰς τὸν βασιλέα Ἥλιον
Εἰς τὸν βασιλέα Ἥλιον, an oration on the worship of the sun, addressed to Sallustius, his old military councillor and friend, first in Gaul and afterwards in Germany: ed. by Theodorus Marcilius, Paris, 1583. 8vo.; by Vincentius Marinerius, Madrid, 1625, 8vo. 5. Εἰς τὴν μητέρα τῶν θεῶν
Εἰς τὴν μητέρα τῶν θεῶν, an oration on the mother of gods (Cybele): Julian visited the temple of Cybele at Pessinus, and restored her worship. 6. Εἰς τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους Κύνας; and 7. Πρὸς Ἡράκλειον Κυνικὸν, περὶ τοῦ πῶς Κυνιστέυν, και εἰ πρέπει τῷ Κυνὶ μύθους, πράττειν
Εἰς τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτους Κύνας; and 7. Πρὸς Ἡράκλειον Κυνικὸν, περὶ τοῦ πῶς Κυνιστέυν, και εἰ πρέπει τῷ Κυνὶ μύθους, πράττειν two orations on true and false Cynicism, the latter addressed to the Cynic Heracleius. 8. Ἐπὶ τῆ ἐξόδῳ τοῦ ἀλαθωτάτου Σαλλουστίον παραμυθητικός
Ἐπὶ τῆ ἐξόδῳ τοῦ ἀλαθωτάτου Σαλλουστίον παραμυθητικός, a letter to the aforesaid Sallustius, in which he consoles himself and his friends on the recal of Sallustius, by the emperor Constantius, from Gaul to the East. 9. A Letter to Themistius
A letter, or more correctly dissertation, addressed to his former tutor, the philosopher Themistius, on the difficulty the author thinks he would experience in showing himself so perfect an emperor as Themistius expected. III. Other Works. 1. Καίσαρες ἢ Συμπόσιον (the Caesars or the Banquet)
Καίσαρες ἢ Συμπόσιον, the Caesars or the Banquet, a satirical composition, which Gibbon justly calls one of the most agreeable and instructive productions of ancient wit. Julian describes the Roman emperors approaching one after the other to take their seat round a table placed in the heavens; and as they come up, their faults, vices, and crimes, are censured with a sort of bitter mirth by old Silenus, whereupon each Caesar defends himself as well as he can, that is, as well as Julian allows him to do; but in this Julian shows much partiality, especially towards Constantine the Great and other members of the imperial family. Alexander the Great also appears. He and other great heroes at last acknowledge that a royal philosopher is greater than a royal hero, and the piece finishes with a great deal of praise bestowed upon Julian by himself. Editions
There are many editions and translations of this remarkable production. Of these, the most important are the text with a Latin translation by C. Cantoclarus, Paris, 1577, 8vo., the Editio Princeps; the same, Paris, 1583, 8vo.; the same, corrected by Frederic Sylburg, in the third volume of his Romanae Hisitoriae Scriptores Minores, and separately, Frankfort, 1590, fol.; by Petrus Cunaeas, with an elegant Latin translation, Leyden, 1612, 12mo., 1632, 12mo.; the same with the notes of Cellarius, Leipzig, 1693, 8vo., 1735, 8vo.
The best editions are by J. M. Heusinger, Gotha, 1736, 8vo., 1741, 8vo., and by Harless, the editor of Fabricius, Bibl. Grraeca, Erlangen, 1785, 8vo. Translations
An English translation of the Caesares, the Misopogon, and several other productions of Julian, is contained in Select Works of the Emperor Julian, and some Pieces of the Sophist Libanius, &c., with Notes from Petav, La Bléterie, Gibbon, &c., and a translation of La Bléterie's Vie de Jovien, by John Duncombe, London, 1784, 8vo.
Several French, German, Italian, and Dutch translations are mentioned by Fabricius. 2. Ἀντιοχικὸς ἢ μισοτώλων (the Antiochian, or the Enemy of the Beard)
Ἀντιοχικὸς ἢ μισοτώλων, the Antiochian, or the Enemy of the Beard, a severe satire on the licentious and effeminate manners of the inhabitants of Antioch, with occasional ironical confessions of the author's own faults, who was induced to write this amusing piece during his stay at Antioch, as mentioned above. Julian chose the title Μισοτώλων because the inhabitants of Antioch, being accustomed to shave themselves, ridiculed Julian, who allowed his beard to grow, in the ancient fashion. Editions: by Petrus Martinius, Paris, 1567, 8vo., 1583, 8vo.; by H. I. Lasius, together with the Caesares, and a German translation of both, Greifswald, 1770, 8vo.; there are also English, French, and German translations of the Misopogon. The following English translations of some of the minor productions of Julian are worthy of mention: " Julian's Letter to the Bostrens," translated by the Earl of Shaftesbury, in his "Characteristics," London, 1733, 12mo.; two Orations of the Emperor Julian, viz. to the Sun, and to the Mother of the Gods, with notes, &c.. London, 1793, 8vo. The English literature is rich in works on Julian. IV. Poems.
Three epigrams of little importance, in the " Anthologia Graeca," and a fourth, discovered by Boissonade, in the " Analecta," and in Heyler's edition of Julian's Letters. V. Lost Works.
The most important is, Κατὰ Χριστιανξῶν, a refutation of the Christian religion, in seven books, according to Hieronymus, although Cyrill only speaks of three. These three books were directed against the dogmatical part of the Christian religion, as contained in the Gospels; and it is against this part of the work that Cyrill wrote his famous work Υπὲρ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν εὐαλοῦς σρνσκείας, πρὸς τὰ τοῦ ἐν ἀθέοις Ἰουλιανοῦ, which is separately printed in Spanheim's edition of the works of Julian. All the copies of Julian's work which could be found were destroyed by order of the emperor Theodosius II., and the whole would have been lost for ever but for Cyrill, who gives extracts from the three first books in his refutation of Julian. But these extracts are far from giving an adequate idea of the work. Cyrill confesses that he had not ventured to copy several of the weightiest arguments of the author. The Κατὰ Χρλστιανῶν, was likewise refuted by Apollinaris, whose Λόγος ὑτὲρ ἀληθείας κατὰυς Ἰουλιανοῦ however, is lost, as are the refutations of Photius and Philippus of Sida. The marquis d'Argens, a chamberlain to Frederic the Great, king of Prussia, translated the extracts made by Cyrill, and tried to complete them, according to some, at the suggestion of his master. The title of the translation is, " Défense du Paganisme par l'Empereur Julien, en Grec et en Franfais," &c. &c., Berlin, 1764, 8vo.; lb. (Geneva), 1768, 8vo.; Ib. 1769, 2 vols. 8vo. The marquis was any thing but a Christian, and his opinions on Julian and Paganism were attacked by G. F. Meier in his "Beurtheiluung der Betrachtungen des Marquis d'Argens iiber Julian," Halle, 1764, 8vo.; by W. Crichton," Betrachtungen über den Abfall Julian's;" and by others. Other lost works of Julian are: Περὶ τῶν τριῶν σχημάτων; Περὶ τοῦ πόθεν τὰ κακὰ κατὰ τοὺς ἀπαιδεύτουδ; Τὰ καλούμενα Κπόνια; Memoirs on his Campaigns in Germany; his Journal, in which he used to write down the events of every day; and others, especially many letters.
Julian composed his works in the following chronological order:--The Encomia on Constantius; the Encomium on the Empress Eusebia, not before A. D. 356; the Letter to Sallustius, in A. D. 360; the Letter to the Senate and the People of Athens, in A. D. 360; the Letter to Themistius, and the Oration on Helius, in 361; the Καίσαρες, in the winter of 361-362, or perhaps in the following year; most of his extant Letters during the same period; one of his Orations on false Cynicism, and that on the Mother of Gods, as well as a Letter on the restoration of ancient Hellenism, of which a fragment is extant, in 362; the Misopogon in the beginning of 363; and the Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν finished during his expedition against the Persians, in the summer of 363. Further Information
The works of Julian; Amm. Marc. 5.8_25.5; most of the Orations and Epistles of Libanius, especially, Oratio Parentalis; Ad Antiochenos de Imperatoris Ira; De Neee Juliani ulciscenda; Socrates, H. E. lib. iii.; Zonar. lib. xiii.; Zosim. lib. iii.; Eutrop. 10.14, &c.; Themist. Orat. iv.; Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. iii. iv. x. xxi.; Sozomen. lib. v. vi.; Mamertinus in Panegyric. Vet. (Mamertinus was Comes Largitionum to Julian, whom he accompanied in Gaul, and on his memorable expedition down the Danube); Aurel. Vict. Constantius in fin.; Moses Chorenensis, lib. iii.; Theophanes, pp. 29-44, ed. Paris; Fabric. Bibl. Graeca, vol. vi. p. 719, &c. For other sources, especially ecclesiastical writers, and with regard to Julian's apostacy, we refer the reader to Fabricius, the notes to the splendid life of Julian by Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall, and the Abbé de la Bléterie's Vie de Julien, of which there is an English translation; Neander, Ueber den Kaiser Julian, Leipz. 1812; Wiggers, Dissert. de Juliano Apostata, Rostock, 1810, of which there is a new edition in German in Illgen's Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol. 1837, vol. vii.; Schulze, De Juliani Philosophia et Moribus, 1839; Teuffel, De Juliano religionis Christiani contemptore, Tübingen. 1844.
[W.P]
the Graeco-Roman Jurist. A Latin Epitome of the Novells of Justinian is extant under this name. In one MS. the work is attributed to Joannes, a citizen of Constantinople; in some, no author is named; but in several the translation and abridgment are ascribed to Julianus, a professor (antecessor) at Constantinople. It is remarkable that no jurist of the name is recorded among the compilers employed by Justinian, and no professor of the name occurs in the inscription of the Const. Omnem addressed by Justinian in A. D. 533 to the professors of law at Constantinople and Berytus. Among the extracts from contemporaries of Justinian, which were originally appended to the text of the Basilica, there is not one that bears the name of Julianus. In Basil. 16. tit. 1. s. 6.2 (vol. ii. p. 180, ed. Heimbach), a Julianus is named as putting a question to Stephanus, one of the eminent jurists of Justinian's time, and hence it has been supposed that the author of the Epitome of the Novells was a disciple of Stephanus. That a Julianus, however, attained such legal celebrity in the reign of Justinian as to be complimented with the phrase " The luminary of the law," may be inferred from the epigram * In this epigram, by Ῥώμη we are probably to understand Constantinople, which was New Rome. Perhaps Ἰουλιανόν is to be pronounced as a trisyllable, Youlyhnon. In the epigram prefixed to the Digest in the Florentine manuscript, we find the name Τριβωνιανός admitted into an hexameter line :-- Βίβλον Ἰουστινανὸς ἄναξ τεχνήσατο τήνδε ἣν ῥα Τριβωνιανὸς μεγάλῳ κάμε Παμβάσιλῆι of his contemporary Theaetetus Scholasticus preserved in the Anthologia Graeca (vol. iii. p. 216, ed. Jacobs), among other epigrams addressed to the statues of eminent men:-- τοῦτον Ἰουλιανόν, νομικὸν φάος, εἶπον ιδοῦσαι Ῥώμη καὶ Βερόη, πάντα φύσις δύναται. Hunc videntes Julianum, splendidum juris decus, Roma Berytusque, Nil non, inquiunt, natura quit.
Alciatus (Parery. 2.46) calls Julianus patricius and exconsul, but without sufficient authority; and Huher Goltzius, in his preface to the edition of the Epitome of the Novells, which was published at Bruges in 1565, thinks it likely that the author of the Epitome was identical with the consul Julianus, to whom Priscian dedicates his grammar.
That the author of the Epitome was a professor is shown by various forms of expression occurring in that work which are known to have been usual among the professors of the Lower Empire; as, for example, the word didicimus, at the beginning of the 67th constitution of the Epitome. It is also clear, from internal evidence, that the author was a resident in Constantinople, which in 100.216 and 358 he calls haec civitas, although in neither case does the Novell of Justinian which he is abstracting contain a parallel expression.
The collection of Novells translated and abridged by Julianus is referred by Fréherus, in his Chronologia prefixed to the Jus Graeco-Romanum, to the year A. D. 570, and this date has been followed by the majority of legal historians; but there is every reason to believe that the Epitome was completed during the life of Justinian, in A. D. 556. In it Justinian is uniformly called noster imperator, while preceding emperors, as Leo and Justinus, are called Divus Leo and Divus Justinus. In the abstracts of Novells 117 and 134 there is no allusion to the subsequent legislation of Justinian, which again permitted divortium bona gratia. In the original collection, also, no Novell of later date than the year A. D. 556 is abstracted. Works Epitome of the Novells of Justinian
The original collection consists of 124, or at most 125, constitutions. These again are divided into chapters, which, in the editions subsequent to A. D. 1561, are doubly numbered, one numbering running through the work from the commencement, and another beginning anew with each constitution. The 125 constitutions make 564 chapters. This will explain the different modes of citation. Thus const. 1 consists of four chapters, and const. 2 of live chapters. The fourth chapter of const. 2 might be cited as 100.9, or as const. 2, 100.4. Again, the 8th constitution, the whole of which makes one chapter (the 48th), may be cited as const. 8, or as 100.44. All that follows the 125th constitution in the manuscripts and printed editions consists of additions forming an appendix to the original collection.
The order of the Epitome is very different from that of the 168 Novells in the ordinary modern editions of the Corpus Juris. Of those 168 Novells, seven are constitutions of Justin II. and Tiberius, four are edicts of praefecti praetorio, and several are constitutions of Justinian subsequent to A. D. 556. Of the 168 Novells, Novells 114, 121, 138, 143, and 150, are abstracted in the appendix to the Epitome found in some manuscripts, and 19, 21, 33, 36, 37, 50, 116, 122, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139-149, 151-158, are altogether wanting in Julianus.
Tables exhibiting the correspondence of the Novells in the Corpus Juris with the corresponding abstracts in Julianus may be found in Biener, Gesehichte der Novellen, pp. 538-9; Savigny's Zeitschrift, vol. iv. p. 187; Böcking, Institutionen, pp. 73-75. The first thirty-nine constitutions in the Epitome are arranged very irregularly, but the arrangement from const. 40 to const. 111 is chronological, and agrees pretty closely with that of the Novells in the Corpus Juris from Nov. 44 to Nov. 120.
Julianus translated from the original Greek, and he had before him the Latin text of those Novells which were originally published in Latin. He leaves out the inscriptions, verbose prooemia, and epilogues, but gives the subscriptiones (containing the date at the end). The substance of the enacting part is given without much abridgment, and the Latin style of the author is tolerably clear and pure.
It may seem strange that a professor living in a country where Greek was the vernacular language, at a time when others were translating into Greek the monuments of Roman legislation, should employ himself in composing a Latin Epitome of the Greek Novells. It may be that his work was composed for the benefit of the Italians, who by the conquest of the Ostrogoths in A. D. 554 had been reduced under the dominion of Justinian, or for those western students who frequented the law schools of Constantinople and Berytus. There are passages in the work (e. g., 100.15. c 29-32) which show that it was intended for those who were not Greeks.
Among the cultivators of Roman law in the school of Bologna, this Epitome was called Novella, Novellae, Liber Novellarum. It was probably known early in the eleventh century, before the discovery by Irnerius of another ancient translation of the Novells, containing 134 constitutions in an unabridged form. The glossators were wholly unacquainted with the original Greek Novells. The Epitome was perhaps at first regarded as the authentic work, containing the latest legislation of Justinian. Zachariae, indeed, states (Anecdota, p. 202, citing Pertz, Monumenta, vol. iii.), that Julianus is quoted as the author of it in the Capitula Ingelheimensia as early as A. D. 826, and Julianus, apostate! and monk, is named by Huguccio in the twelfth century (in an unpublished Summa Deeretorunm) as the author of the Novello; but the greater number of the glossators, though they diligently studied the Epitome (Ritter, ad Heineccii Hist. Jur. Civ. vol. 1.403), appear to have known nothing of Julianus. After the Latin translation of 134 Novells was found, it seems at first to have shared the name of Novolla with the work of Julianus, and its authenticity was for a time doubted by Irnerius, even after it had received the name of authenticum, recognising its authenticity, and distinguishing it from the Epitome of Julianus. (Savigny, Geschichte des Röm. Rechts im Mittelalter, vol. ii. pp. 453-466, iv. p. 484.) The Authenticum, or Versio Vulgata, was now taught in the schools, while the Epitome or Novella, though permitted to be read as a subsidiary source of instruction, so rapidly fell into disuse, that neither Fulgosius nor Caccialupi ever saw a copy of it. It is commonly believed that the Epitome of Julian was re-discovered by the monk Ambrosius Traversarius, in A. D. 1433, in the library of Victorinus at Mantua. The main authority for this statement is Suarez, in his Notit. Basil. § 21; but there is reason to doubt the story, which is not confirmed by an extant letter of Ambrosius (Ambrosii Traversarii Cameldunensis Epistolae, vol. i. p. 419, Florent. 1759), giving an account of the books that he found in the library at Mantua. He mentions a work Joannis Consulis de Variis Quaestionibus, but by this he can scarcely mean the Epitome, for it seems to have been a Greek book. A very elaborate and valuable literary history of the Epitome was drawn up by Haubold, and inserted in the fourth volume of Savigny's Zeitschrift. As an appendix to this paper, Professor Hänel of Leipzig has given in the eighth volume of the Zeitschrift an accurate enumeration of the known existing manuscripts. Though the printed editions of the Epitome are numerous, they are scarce, and the new edition which Hänel is understood to be preparing will be an acceptable boon to students of Roman law. Three Epigrams
To this same Julianus is attributed the authorship of three epigrams in the same collection (vol. iii. p. 230) headed Ἰουλιανοῦ Ἀντικήνσορος. Editions
The following are the principal printed editions, for the full titles of which the reader is referred to the above-mentioned paper of Haubold. Transcripts of preceding editions of the Epitome have from time to time been inserted in editions of the Volumen-that is to say, the last volume into which the Carpus Juris Civilis was formerly usually divided, containing the Authenticum or Versio Vulgata of the Novells, the last three of the twelve books of the Code, the Libri Feudorum, &c.
1. The first printed edition was published in 8vo., without name or year, at Lyons in 1512, at the end of a collection of the Laws of the Lombards. The editor was Nic. Boherius. The work, which is imperfectly given, is divided into nine collationes. This division, found in several manuscripts, was probably made about the time of Irnerius, to correspond with the first nine books of the Code. The Authenticum was similarly divided into nine collationes.
2. The Epitome was next printed at the end of the Authenticum, apud Sennetonios fratres, Lugd. 1550. In this edition the Epitome, as in many manuscripts, is divided into two parts or books, and, through a misunderstanding of a manuscript inscription, the authorship of the work is attributed to an anonymous citizen of Constance.
3. An independent edition of the Epitome is inserted in the very rare edition of the Volumen, apud Ludovicum Pesnot, 8vo. Lugd. 1558.
4. Next comes the edition of Lud. Miracus (Le Mire, whose name appears in the preface), fol. Lugduni 1561. In this edition Julianus is named as the author, "Imp. Justinitani Constitutiones interprete Juliano." There is a reprint, with a preface by Goltzius, 4to. Brugis, 1565.
5. The edition of Ant. Augustinis, 8vo. Ilerdae, 1567, at the end of Augustini Constitutionum Graecarum Codicis Collectio. This edition is reprinted, with additions, in Augustini Opera, vol. ii. pp. 255-406, fol. Lucae, 1766.
6. Imp. Justiniani Novellae Constitutiones, per Julianum, antecessorem Constutiopolitanum, de Graeco tranlatae. Ex Bibliotheca Petri Pithoei, fol. Basil. 1576.
7. Petri et Francisci Pithoei Ietorum Observtiones ad Codicem et Novellas Justiniani Imperatoris per Julianum translates, cura Francisci Desmzarés, fol. Paris, 1689. The Dictatum pro Consiliariis and the Collectio de Tutoribus.
The last-mentioned editions, 6 and 7, are the best known and the most complete. They contain two short works, called the Dictatum pro Consiliariis and the Collectio de Tutoribus.
These had been previously printed in Pithou's first edition of the Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum (entitled Fragmenta quaedam Papiniani, &100.4to. Paris, 1573). In several manuscripts they are attributed to Julianus; but Biener, in his Historia Authenticarum Codici Inscrtarum, 4to. Lips. 1807, has adduced strong arguments to show that Julianus was not the author of them. Their Latinity is far less pure than that of the Epitome. It is not unlikely, however, that these works, as well as the ancient scholia upon the Epitome of Julianus, were written in Grecian Italy during the lifetime of Justinian, who in the Dictatum is twice styled princeps noster, and in the scholia (ed. Miraei, p. 177) imperator noster. (Savigny, Geschichte, &c., vol. ii. pp. 195-197; Biener, in Savigny's Zeitschrift, vol. v. pp. 338-357.) Translation
A German translation of the Epitome, by D. Justin Gobler, was published anonymously, fol. Frank. 1566. Greek Epitome of the Novells
Zachariae (Anecdota, p. 202, &c.) endeavours to identify Julianus with the author of a much shorter Greek Epitome of the Novells, who is cited in the sources of Graeco-Roman law as Anonymus. Anonymus, like Julianus, seems to have been a professor at Constantinople. Anonymus cites the Novells of Justinian in an order which does not very considerably differ from that of Julianus. Anonymus seems to have been skilled in Latin as well as Greek, and was perhaps the author of an ancient Latin version of the Greek fragments of Modestinus which occur in the Digest. Further, there is strong reason to identify the anonymous with Enantiophanes; and Enantiophanes, like Julianus, was a disciple of Stephanus. [Enantiophanes.] When Italy, after the invasion of the Lombards in A. D. 568, was rent from the Roman empire, Julianus may have turned to writing in Greek. Mortreueil (Histoire de Droit Byzantin, vol. i. pp. 293-300), who agrees with Zachariae in these conjectures, thinks that Julianus was probably not an authorised expositor of the law, and that none but jurists specially authorised could, without a breach of rule, be cited by name. The conjecture that Julianus and Anonymus were identical is controverted by G. E. Heimbach, in Richter's Kritische Jahrbücher for 1839, p. 970. Further Information
Winckler, Opuscula, vol. i. p. 418; Biener, Geschichte der Novellen, pp. 70-84.) [J.T.G]
(Ἱουλιανός), a Physician of Alexandria, a contemporary of Galen, in the second century after Christ. (Gal. Adv. Julian. 100.1. vol. xviii. pt. i. p. 248.) He was a pupil of Apollonius of Cyprus (Gal. De Meth. Med. 1.7, vol. x p . 54), and belonged to the sect of the Methodici, and was said to have composed forty-eight books against the "Aphorisms" of Hippocrates (Adv. Julian. l.c.). The second of these was directed against the second Aphorism of the first section, and is confuted in a short essay written by Galen with excessive and unjustifiable rudeness and asperity. None of his writings (which were numerous) are still extant. From Galen's mentioning that it was more than twenty years since lie had met Julianus at Alexandria (De Meth. Med. p. 53), and that he was then still alive, it will appear that Julianus was living as late as about the year 180 after Christ. (See Littré's Hippocrates, vol. i. pp. 103, 114.) [W.A.G]
an eminent Roman jurist, who flourished under Hadrian and the Antonines. Of his private history little is known, and different opinions have been held as to the place of his birth. Many of his biographers (as Rivallius, Val. Forsterus, Pancirolus, Rutilius, Bertrandus, Guil. Grotius) make him a native of Milan (Insuber Mediolanensis), while the majority of more modern writers say that he was born at Hadrumnetum, a Phoenician colony on the coast of Africa. These opposite opinions are both grounded on a passage of Spartianus (Did. Julian. 100.1), where it is asserted that the paternal grandfather of the emperor who ascended the throne after Pertinax came from Mediolanum, and the maternal grandfather from Hadrumetum. It is well ascertained that Salvius Julianus the jurist was a maternal ancestor of the emperor Didius Julianus, and it is probable that, according to the express testimony of Spartianus (l.c.), the jurist was the great-grandfather (proavus) of the emperor, not, as Politianus asserts (Epist. ad Jac. Modesturm), the uncle, nor, as Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Misc. 10.20) would make him, the grandfather. Eutropius (8.9) hesitates. "Salvius Julianus," says he, "nepos vel, secundum Lampridium, pronepos Salvii Juliani, qui sub Hadriano perpetuum composuit edictum." Zimmern (R. R. G. vol. 1.91) agrees with Paulus Diaconus. Many mistakes have been committed, from the confusion of the jurist with others of the same name and family. For example, Aurelius Victor, if his text be not interpolated (De Caes. 19), confounds the jurist with the emperor, who, like his ancestor, was distinguished on account of his legal acquirements. And this mistake of Aurelius Victor misled the celebrated Hugo Grotius (Florum Sparsio, p. 78, ed. Amst. 1643). It is therefore historically important to establish correctly the genealogy of the family.
This investigation was undertaken by Casaubon (ad Spartiani Did. Julian. 1, in Historiae Augustae Scriptores), and was subsequently pursued, with the aid of two inscriptions, by Reinesius (Var. Lect. 3.2, p. 344; Gruter. Insc. p. 18.2, 10, p. 459), who was followed by Christ. ad. Ruperti (Animad. in Enchirid. Pomponii, p. 473, inserted in the useful collection of Uhlus, entitled Opuscula ad Historians Juris pertinentia, p. 215). The labours of former inquirers were reviewed by Heineccius, whose elaborate researches have explored every source of information concerning the jurist Julianus. We subjoin tables of the genealogy of the family, so far as may be useful to illustrate the relationships of persons with whom the jurist has been confounded. These tables are constructed according to the view which, upon comparison of authorities, appears to us by far the most probable:--
It appears from Spartianus, that the emperor had a brother, Numius Albinus, and from an inscription in Gruter (Inscr. p. 459, 2), it has been thought that Numius Albinus was the son of a Vibia Salvia Varia. Hence Reinesius conjectures that the Vibia of the inscription and the Aemilia Clara of Spartianus are the same person, while Heineccius supposes that Numius Albinus was called tes brother of the emperor, though he had neither the same father nor the same mother, as being the son by a former husband of a former wife of the emperor's father. According to Heineccius, one Numius and Vibia were the parents of Numius Albius ; then, after the death of Numius the father, Petronius Didius and Vibia were the parents of Didius Proculus; then, after the death of Vibia, Petronius Didius and Aemilia Clara were the parepts of the emperor.
Julianus was born about the year A. D. 100, after Trajan had become emperor. This is inferred from the date of his labours on the Edict, which according to Eusebius, were undertaken about A. D. 132, when he was probably praetor. At this period the leges annales were strictly observed, and the regular age for the praetorship was about thirty. (Plin. Ep. 7.30; Dio Cass. lii. p. 479.) He is the first jurist named in the Florentine Index to the Digest, though there are fragments in that work from nine jurists of earlier date, and, though he was not the last of the Sabinians, he is the last jurist named by his contemporary Pomponius in the fragment De Origine Juris (Dig. 1. tit. 2. s. 2). That he flourished under Antoninus Pius, and survived that emperor, may be collected from several passages in the Digest. (Dig. 4. tit. 2. s. 18; Dig. 3. tit. .5. s. 6.) In Dig. 37. tit. 14. s. 17, the Divi Fratres, Antoninus Marcus and Lucius Verus, call him their friend, a designation ordinarily given by the emperors to living members of their council. By many it has been supposed that he lived to a great age, from a misunderstanding of Dig. 40. tit. 5. s. 19. In that passage, the person who speaks of having attained his 78th year, and of being desirous to gain information, though lie had one foot in the grave, is not Julianus, but the client who seeks his opinion.
In Dig. 40. tit. 2. s. 5, he speaks of Javolenus as his praeceptor. It was usual to manumit slaves before praetors and consuls, when they held their levees. Whether the magistrate could manumit his own slaves at his own levee was doubted. Julianus says that he remembered Javolenus having done so in Africa and Syria, that he followed his praeceptor's example in his own praetorship and consulship, and recommended other praetors who consulted him to act in the same manner. It thus appears that he was consul, and Spartianus says that he was praefectus urbi, and twice consul, but his name does not appear in the Fasti among the consules ordinarii. He was in Egypt when Serapias, the Alexandrian woman who produced five children at a birth, was in Rome. (Dig. 46. tit. 3. s. 46.) Pancirolus and others, from supposing the jurist to be referred to in passages of the Digest (e. g. Dig. 48. tit. 3. s. 12) which probably relate to other Salvii, have conferred upon him various provincial governments. The time of his death is uncertain, but it appears that he was buried in the Via Lavicana, for Spartianus (Julian. c. ult.) says that the body of the emperor was deposited in the monument of his proavus.
It was under Hadrian that he chiefly signalised himself. That emperor was accustomed, when he presided at trials, to have the advice and assistance not only of his friends and officers of state, but of jurists approved by the senate. Among the most eminent of this legal council were Juventius Celsus, Salvius Julianus, and Neratius Priscus. (Spart. Hadr.) By the order of Hadrian, he collected and arranged the clauses which the praetors were accustomed to insert in their annual edict, and appears to have condensed his materials, and to have omitted antiquated provisions. The exact nature and extent of this reformation of the Edict is one of the most obscure and disputed questions in the history of the Roman law. Some legal historians look upon it as a most important change, and suppose that the power of departing from the Edict by additions or modified clauses was now taken away from the magistrates. Other writers, especially Hugo, seem disposed to reduce the dimensions of the change within the narrowest compass. The direct testimony of ancient writers upon this subject is scanty. In Const. Δέδωκεν, § 18, and Const. Tanta, § 18, is contained the most detailed information we possess. From these parallel passages, it appears that in the body of the reformed Edict, and in the decree of the senate which accompanied it, there was an enactment, that any case not provided for might be ruled cy près by the emperor and his magistrates. In Const. Tanta, § 18, Julianus is styled by Justinian Legum et Edicti perpetui subtilissimus Conditor, whence it may perhaps be inferred that Julianus not only arranged the Edict, but collected the Constitutions of emperors, which are often designated by the word Leges. He introduced a new clause of his own into the Edict (Dig. 37. tit. 8. s. 3). Paeanius, a contemporary of Justinian, in his Metaphrasis of Eutropius (8.9, Paeanius, H. ιζ), says that the new Edict was called the Edict of Hadrian, or, in Latin, the Edictum Perpetuum. The Edictum of Hadrian, mentioned in Cod. x. tit. 39. s. 7, was probably a special proclamation of that emperor, distinct from the Edict we are treating of. The name perpetuum edictum was given in early times to the praetor's annual edicts, intended as the rule of ordinary practice, as distinguished from special proclamations-to "id quod jurisdictionis perpetuae causa, non quod prout res incidit, in albo propositum erat" (Dig. 2. tit. 1. s. 7); but, after the reform of Hadrian, the epithet perpetuum seems to have acquired new force. Though all the great principles of the Jus Honorarium were settled before the end of the republic, though the Edict had long assumed an approach to permanence, not only in matter but in form (for the earlier writers upon the Edict appear to follow the same order with those who wrote after Hadrian), the new edictum perpetuum was manifestly endowed with an additional authority, which, if it did not preclude the future exercise of the jus edicendi in magistrates, must have practically restricted it to cases not provided for in the compilation of Julianus. In a manuscript at Florence (Cod. Laurent. Plut. lxxx. cod. 6) of a Graeco-Roman Epitome of Law of the tenth century, Hadrian is said to have associated Servius Cornelius with Julianus in the task of consolidation and arrangement; but the Graeco-Roman jurists are very unsafe authorities in matters of history, and the author of the cited Epitome may have been led to mention a Cornelius in connection with the Edict, from having heard of the lex Cornelia (proposed by the tribune C. Cornelius in B. C. 67), by which it was enacted " ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis jus dicerent." [C. Cornelius; Cornelius, Servius.] The other early writers who mention the labours of Julianus on the Edict are Aurelius Victor (de Caes. 19), Eusebius (Chron. ad A.U.C. 884, n. 2147), and Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Misc. 10.20). How far the reform affected the edict of the praetor peregrinus (which was in the main similar to that of the praetor urbanus) and the edict of the aediles (which seems subsequently to have been treated of as an appendage to the praetor's edict, Pauli Sententiae, i. tit. 15. s. 2), there are not sufficient data to determine. (F. A. Biener, de Salvii Juliani in edicto praetoris meritis rife aestumanldis, 4to. Lips. 1809; Francke, de Edicto practoris urbanii, praesertim perpeluo, Kilon. 1830; Hugo, R.R.G. p 795; Puchta, Institutionen, vol. 1.114.)
In the Roman law there was a form of proceeding, called the Interdictum Salvianum, by which a landlord might obtain possession of goods of his tenant, which had been pledged as a security for the payment of the rent. (Gaius, 4.147.) Cujas suspected that Julianus the jurist was the author of the Interdictum Salvianum, and in this conjecture was followed by Ménage (Amoen. Jur. 100.24), but, as Bynkershoeck has shown (Observ. Jur. Rom. 1.24), the Interdictum Salvianum is probably of much earlier date than the reign of Hadrian. It is commented upon by Julianus as an established form of proceeding, which had been extended by equitable construction to cases not originally contemplated (interdictumn utile), and he does not use a single expression to render it likely that he himself introduced or invented it. (Dig. 43. tit. 33. s. 1.)
Pomponius enumerates Aburnus Valens, Tuscianus, and Julianus, as the successors of Javolenus in the leadership of the Sabinian school of jurists. The addiction of Julianus to the tenets of his school is clear, from many passages in his remains, but he was not an undeviating adherent. Thus, in Dig. 43. tit. 24. s. 11.12, he differs from Cassius; and in Dig. 40. tit. 4. s. 57, Gaius observes that his opinion is inconsistent with the principles of Cassius and Sabinus.
He was a voluminous legal writer, and a very able reasoner upon legal subjects. His style is easy and clear, and, though it has often been said that his language abounds in Graecisms, not one has been pointed out, except the use of the word manifestus, in such an expression as " Manifestus est dotem relegasse," (Dig. 33. tit. 4. s. 3.) His opinion was highly valued by contemporary and succeeding jurists, who constantly cite him with approbation, and some of whom appear to have consulted him personally on difficult questions. (Vat. Frag. 77, Dig. 37. tit. 5. s. 6, Dig. 30. tit. 1. s. 39.) He is one of those foremost jurists whose names are mentioned by way of example in the citation-law of Valentinian III. (Cod. Theod. i. tit. 4. s. 3.) His authority is cited by emperors in their Constitutions, as by Leo and Anthemius in Cod. 6. tit. 61. s. 5, and by Justinian in Cod. 4. tit. 5. s. 10, Cod. 2. tit. 19. s. 24, Cod. 3. tit. 33. s. 15, Nov. 74 pr. About 457 extracts from his works are inserted in the Digest. In Hommel's Palingenesia these fragments occupy ninety pages. He is more often cited by other jurists than any legal writer, except Ulpian, Paulus, and Papinian, and he is commonly named without special reference to the passage where his opinion is contained. Volusius Maecianus and Terentius Clemens both call him Julianus noster (Dig. 35. tit. I. s. 85, Dig. 28. tit. 6. s. 6), perhaps as his pupils, or perhaps as his associates in the imperial council. In the fragments of Africanus there appears to be such a constant reference to the opinions of Julianus, that Africanus is generally supposed to have been his pupil. Works
The following are the titles of his works:-- 1. Digestorum Libri XC.
It was perhaps this title which led Matthaeus Blastares, in the preface to his Syntagma, to the blunder of attributing the Digest of Justinian to Hadrian. By some the voluminous Digest of Julianus has been confounded with the reformed Edict, which was comprised in a single book. The Digesta, like other works of other jurists bearing the same title, appears to have been a system of Roman law, following the arrangement of the Edict, and compiled from the commentators on the text of the Edict. In Julian's Digest, the actual words of the Edict seem to have been inserted and interpreted. The work cited in Dig. 3. tit. 2. s. 1, as Julianus, libro 1° ad Edictum, is perhaps no other than the Digesta of Julianus, but the reading of the Florentine MS. is doubtful, and it is very likely that Ulpianus ought to be substituted for Julianus. In Dig. 1. tit. 3. s. 32, the 94th book of the Digesta is cited, but here there is undoubtedly an error in the reading of lxxxxiiii. in place of lxxxiiii. Indeed, L. T. Gronovius asserts that the fourth x in the Florentine manuscript is not from the first hand. The Digesta was annotated by the Proculeian Ulpius Marcellus, one of the very few jurists who seem more disposed, whenever it is practicable, to censure than to praise Julianus; hence Cujas remarks (Obs. 13.35) that there can scarcely be a stronger proof of the correctness of an opinion than the agreement of Marcellus and Julianus. Another critic was found in Mauricianus (Dig. 2. tit. 14. s. 7.2, and Dig. 7. tit. 1. s. 25.1). Cervidius Scaevola (Dig. 2. tit. 14. s. 54, Dig. 18. tit. 6. s. 10) was a less unfavourable annotator. The fragment in Dig. 4. tit. 2. s. 11, is inscribed " Paulus lib. iv. Juliani Digestorstm notat," and there is a similar inscription in Dig. 18. tit. 5. s. 4, but there is no mention in the Florentine Index of any special work of Paulus upon Julianus. There are 376 extracts from the Digesta of Julianus in the Digest of Justinian. In modern times, the celebrated Cujas wrote lectures on the Digesta of Julianus. (Jac. Cujacii Recitationes solemnes ad Salvii Juliani libros Digestorum, Opera, vol. i.) 2. Ad Minicium, or Ex Minicio, or Apud Minicium Libri VI.
In these various ways is this work named in the Florentine Index and the inscriptions of the Fragments. [Ferox.] This was a commentary upon some work of Minicius Natalis, who lived under Vespasian and Trajan. It appears to follow the arrangement not of the Edict, but of the Libri Juris Civilis of Sabinus. Of the forty fragments in the Digest, those from the first and second book relate to testaments, bonorum possessiones, legacies, and fidei-commissa; those from the third, to the patria potestas and the power of the dominus; those from the fourth, to loans and contracts; those from the fifth, to marriage, tutela, acquiring pessession, &c.; those from the sixth, to interdicts and procedure. In Dig. 19. tit. 1. s. 11.15, Ulpian appears to cite the tenth book, but the reading ought probably to be altered from x to v. 3. Ad Urseium Libri IV.
A commentary upon some work of Urseius Ferox. From the forty-two extracts in the Digest, it appears that Julianus in this treatise followed the series of the books of Sabinus. 4. De Ambiguitaibuis Liber Singularis
From this work there are four extracts in the Digest. It explained the legal sense of ambiguous words, and the rules of interpretation to be applied to obscure expressions in wills and contracts.
These are all the ascertained works of Julianus. That Julianus wrote upon Sextus has by some been inferred from the expression " Juliano ex Sexto placuit " in Gaius, 2.2.18, compared with Fragmenta Vaticana, § 88. Bertrandus, from a misunderstanding of the expression "tractatu proposito" in Cod. 6. tit. 60. s. 5, imagined that he wrote a special treatise, De Dotali Praedio. Further Information
Ménage, Amoen. Juris, 24; Guil. Grotius, de Vit. Ictoruim, 2.6.1; Strauchius, Vitae aliquot JCtorum, Num. 1; Neuber, Die juristischen Klassiker, pp. 183-208. Above all, Heineccius, de Salvio Juliano, Ictorum sua aetate Coryphaeo, Op. vol. ii. pp. 798-818; Historia Edictorum Edictique perpetui, 2.3, Op. vol. vii. sect. 2, pp. 196-2 G1. [J.T.G]