Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2014 Not The Last Pagan Libanius Between
2014 Not The Last Pagan Libanius Between
2014 2:36PM
chapter 13
13.1 Introduction
The religious history of the fourth century used to be understood in terms of
a conflict between paganism and Christianity, with the former resisting the
irresistible progress of the latter.1 As one of the major representatives of
Greek culture in the fourth century, Libanius has often been interpreted in
this light. Indeed, several of his works seem to substantiate such a view. His
thirtieth oration To the Emperor Theodosius for the Temples has helped to
shape the modern perception of the destruction of temples as the paradig-
matic act of the supersession of paganism by Christianity – a perception
that, notwithstanding continued scholarly interest in temple destruction,2
has recently been called a historiographical myth.3 Libanius also consciously
associated himself with the emperor Julian, writing a Monody (Oration 17,
early 364),4 a Funeral Oration (Oration 18, the so-called Epitaphios, written
after 11/10/3685), and an appeal to Theodosius I to avenge the (in his view)
murdered Julian (Oration 24, 379).6 With these orations, Libanius inter-
vened in the debate that was raging about Julian’s legacy – a debate that was
clearly marked by religious oppositions.7 All these speeches explicitly and
The writing of this chapter was supported by the DFG in the framework of the Lichtenberg-Kolleg der
Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.
1
A classic statement of such a view is Momigliano (1963). In relation to Libanius, Gibbon (1781=1994,
917) stated that ‘Libanius experienced the peculiar misfortune of surviving the religion and the
sciences, to which he had consecrated his genius. The friend of Julian was an indignant spectator of
the triumph of Christianity’.
2
Cf. Van Loy (1933), 10, Fowden (1978), Hahn (2002), (2004) and (ed.) (2011) and Hahn, Emmel and
Gotter (2008). For the reception of the oration, see Nesselrath (2011a), 40.
3
Lavan (2011). 4 See Chapter 2 in this volume.
5
Van Nuffelen (2006), reinstating the traditional dating against Wiemer (1995a), 260–8 and Felgentreu
(2004).
6
Cf. Benedetti Martig (1990), 111–50.
7
Cf. Penella (1993), Nesselrath (2001) and Elm (2012), 336–478. Libanius, Letter 1264.6 states that he
has withheld publication of Oration 17 as the enemies of Julian are in power. From the tabulation in
Cribiore (2013), 152–63, one can calculate that Libanius often refers to religion in his letters on the
293
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 294 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
period 361–5: under Julian, half of the letters have references to religion, during the aftermath of his
reign, a third of them. In each case, there is a high proportion of what Cribiore calls ‘significant’, more
extensive references (45% under Julian, 32% during the aftermath of the reign).
8
Cf. Fatouros (1996), Rosen (2006), 292. See Sandwell (2007a), 167 and Graf (2012), 185 for the
argument that Oration 9 On the Calends (dated to the early 390s) responds to John Chrysostom’s
attacks on the Calends festival shortly before. This is possible, but the date of Oration 9 is less firmly
fixed than commonly assumed. The end of the oration refers to the fact that the altars of the gods ‘do
not nowadays have everything they had before, because the law forbids it’ (Oration 9.18: βωμοὶ τε
θεῶν νῦν μὲν οὐ πάντα ἔχουσι τὰ πρόσθεν νόμου κεκωλυκότος; Tr. Wright (2012), 209). This is
usually understood as a reference to the Theodosian laws enacted against pagan sacrifice, in particular
CTh 16.10.10 (24/2/391), 16.10.11 (16/6/391) and 16.10.12 (8/11/392). But the phrase can also be
understood as referring to earlier prohibitions of blood sacrifice: the altars do not receive ‘everything’
any more, so they might still receive libations or other forms of sacrifice. As we shall see below,
Oration 30, usually dated to the mid 380s, precisely assumes such a distinction to exist.
9
Cf. Heather and Moncur (2001), 24.
10
See Stenger (2009), 78 and 384–8. See also Chapter 12 of this volume.
11
Cf. Brown and Lizzi Testa (2011), revisiting Momigliano (1963).
12
Soler (2009) argues that Libanius had contacts with Neopythagorean, anti-Christian circles. The
argument remains very speculative. Quiroga Puertas (2005a, 148–157) argues for a cultural monothe-
ism. For monotheism in Libanius, see Sandwell (2010) and Cribiore (2013), 213–16.
13
Cf. Misson (1914), 155 and Geffcken (1920), 8. See also Petit (1956a), 191, Liebeschuetz (1972), 225–41,
Wöhrle (1995) and Quiroga Puertas (2007c).
14
Norman (1983), 161. 15 Cribiore (2013), 168–73.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 295 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
16 17
Hahn (2011), 119. Cf. Petit (1956a), 191 and Pack (1986), 296–8. See Festugière (1959), 234.
18
Sandwell (2007a).
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 296 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
19
Sandwell (2007a), 239. 20 Sandwell (2007a), 7.
21
Sandwell (2007a). Cribiore (2013), 137–9 suggests Sandwell sees Libanius as an ‘opportunist’ (139), but
this is not an accurate characterisation of Sandwell’s position. In fact, Sandwell’s view of Libanius is
rather close to Cribiore’s of a pagan scholar displaying flexible but moderate attitudes in a complex
religious world.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 297 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
27
See Alan Cameron (2011), 176–7 for a taxonomy of different positions.
28
Graf (2012), 185: ‘the last pagan’. 29 See Liebeschuetz (1972), 225–7. 30 Cf. Schouler (1984).
31
This generates an extensive Christian reflection on the relationship between Christianity and tradi-
tional education: cf. Gemeinhardt (2007).
32
e.g. Libanius, Orations 10.14, 11.150–5, 20.3, 45.20–1 and 50.11. 33 Cf. Elm (2012), 389–93.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 299 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
34
Libanius, Orations 20.3 and 45.20–21. 35 Cf. Tloka (2005); Maxwell (2006).
36
Cf. Brown (1992). 37 Cf. Limberis (2000), 398.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 300 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
38
Nesselrath (2011a), 33–8 provides a clear overview of the discussions about the date and settles for the
solution proposed by Wiemer (1995b), 128: the writing is situated in 385–7 under Cynegius as
Praetorian Prefect of the East but publication in 388, when the pagan Tatianus became Prefect. For
earlier discussions, see Van Loy (1933), Pack (1935), 45, Petit (1951) and Liebeschuetz (1972), 30.
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer (2011, 111) also dates the oration to 385–7. For the terminus ante quem of 392 and
the identification of the anonymous official with Cynegius, see below.
39
See, e.g., Wiemer (1995b), 128 and (2011a), 163 and Stenger (2009), 388.
40
Sandwell (2007a), 157. She later (p. 180) links the privatization of religion to religious toleration.
41
Sizgorich (2007), 84–91 and (2009), 86–106. See also Stenger (2009), 377–89.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 301 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
42
Carrié (1976). See also Grey (2011), 219–20. For a similar analysis of Oration 31, see Van Hoof
(2014c).
43
e.g. Norman (1977), 92–3, Wiemer (2011a), 163 (‘Grundsatzrede’), Kahlos (2009), 92–5, Cribiore
(2013), 158 (‘the official spokesman of paganism’).
44
For the structure, see Nesselrath (2011a), 31–2.
45
Delmaire (1989), 641–4. See Libanius, Oration 30.43 and CJ 11.66.4 (18/1/383?).
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 302 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
46
Libanius, Oration 30.54: Πῶς δ᾿ἀλλοτρίων ἅπτονται μετ᾿ὀργῆς ἀγρῶν; ‘How do they grasp the
estates of others in anger?’
47
Libanius, Oration 30.55: ἴσθι τοὺς τῶν ἀγρῶν δεσπότας καὶ αὑτοῖς καὶ τῷ νόμῳ βοηθήσοντας.
48
Libanius, Oration 30.20: ἀλλ’ ἐν οἷς ἐξηλάσατε τοὺς ταῖς αὑτῶν ἐπιμελείαις πενίᾳ βοηθοῦντας . . .
(but your expulsion of people who by their personal care provided relief for poverty . . . ’ Tr. Norman)
can be understood as a reference to the expulsion of benevolent landowners.
49
Cf. Libanius, Oration 47.11 and 22, for the use of ager and despotes with the meaning of ‘estate’
and ‘lord’.
50
Stenger (2009), 378 and Nesselrath (2011a), 32.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 303 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
51
Wytzes (1978), 1336–7, Nesselrath (2011a), 33, Nesselrath (ed.) (2011), 80 n. 34 and Cribiore (2013),
224–6.
52
Cf. Behrends (2011), 123–4.
53
Barnes (1984), Bradbury (1994) and Behrends (2011, 117–26) argue that Constantine did ban sacrifice.
Doubts expressed by Belayche (2005), 352 with further references.
54
Bonamente (2011), 70 and Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer (2011), 111.
55
Nesselrath (ed.)(2011), 80 n. 34. Belayche (2005) argues that no prohibition of sacrifice, including
blood sacrifice, existed before the laws of 391 and 392. Libanius’ argumentative strategy would make
no sense if by the 380s no such prohibition existed.
56
The Novatian historian Socrates (Church History 5.10.27–8) interprets CTh 16.5.12 (3/12/383) as
granting the Novatians the right to have churches in Constantinople. In fact, the law grants the
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 304 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
Nicenes this right and excludes a number of heresies. The Novatians were a schism that claimed to
follow the same faith of Nicea (without officially having accepted the council). Sozomen, Church
History 7.12.11 corrects Socrates. See Van Nuffelen (2004). Many of the claims made by Eusebius for
Constantine’s religious legislation (Life of Constantine 2.45 and 4.25) are based on such overinterpre-
tations: see Behrends (2011), 115.
57
Libanius, Oration 30.18: ἓν εἰπὼν δεῖν μὴ ποιεῖν τἄλλα πάντα ἀφῆκας (Tr. Norman).
58
Libanius, Oration 30.17: ‘οὐκ ἔθυσαν οὖν;’ ἐρήσεται τις. ‘Πάνυ γε, ἀλλ᾿ἐπὶ θοίνῃ καὶ ἀρίστῳ καὶ
εὐωχίᾳ τῶν βοῶν ἀλλαχοῦ σφαττομένων . . .’. ‘Did they not sacrifice, then?’ one may ask. ‘Of course
they did, but for a shared meal and dinner and good cheer with the cattle being slaughtered
somewhere else . . .’.
59
Libanius, Oration 30.18. 60 Cf. Harries (1999), Humfress (2007).
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 305 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
62
It was possible for delatores to claim part of the estate themselves: Delmaire (1989), 626–31.
63
CTh 16.5.8 (19/7/381).
64
CTh 16.10.12 (8/11/392): Bonamente (2011), 78; Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer (2011), 105. For similar stipula-
tions regarding the donatists, see CTh 16.6.4 (12/2/405).
65
This can be related to the injunction that landowners should actively pursue the conversion of their
estates, a well-attested plea by bishops: for references, see MacMullen (1984), 100–1.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 307 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
66
CTh 16.11.1 (20.8.399); Augustine, Sermon 62.17–18. For the problem of paralegal enforcement, see
Fowden (1978).
67
For negative opinions about monks, see e.g. Consultationes Zacchariae et Apollonii 3.3.1–2, 6;
Hieronymus, Letter 22.28; Augustine, Retractationes 2.21 and Letter 262; Cassianus, Collationes 18.7;
Ambrose, Epistulae extra collectionem 1.27; CTh 16.3.1 (2/9/390); Rutilius Namatianus 1.439–52, 7.515–26.
See Brown (1992), 51, Jiménez Sánchez (2010), Nesselrath (2011b) and Wallraff (2011).
68
On the episcopalis audientia, see Humfress (2007), 170–3 and (2011). 69 Libanius, Oration 30.49.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 308 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
70
McLynn (2005), 33–6.
71
Cynegius is said by Zosimus to have closed temples on demand of the emperor (4.37.3). If one wishes
to identify Cynegius with Libanius’ official, then one can understand Libanius’ argument in 30.49–50
as saying that he had overstepped his instructions by allowing the destruction of temples instead of
their closure. But as I have argued throughout, this is not Libanius’ principal worry. The distinction
between closing and destroying is sometimes not noticed in scholarship: Behrends (2011), 96.
72
Delmaire (2005), 35–6. On the code and its compilation, see Matthews (2000).
73
No destruction is demanded in fourth-century legislation and sometimes explicit preservation is
requested: CTh 16.10.3 (1/11/342), 16.10.15 (29/8/399).
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 309 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
74
For the elite interests of Libanius, see Pack (1935), 9 and Petit (1956a), 35–6 and 62. Libanius usually
covers up elite interests with more general considerations: see, e.g., Orations 19.44, 21.20, 22.12,
47.7–8, 47.34 and 47.56–9.
75
This corresponds to the two rhetorical heads identified by Berry and Heath (1997), 415–18: usefulness
and legality.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 310 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
76
Meyer-Zwiffelhoffer (2011), 111. 77 Wiemer (2011a), 168.
78
See already Libanius, Oration 30.11.
79
See also Oration 30.22, the destruction of a statue in Beroia.
80
On the relative paucity of temple destruction, see Lavan (2011). 81 Cooper (1992), 161.
82
Libanius, Oration 30.48: Ἔδει δὲ αὐτὸν <μὴ> μετὰ τὰς οἰκείας ἡδονὰς τὰ σαυτοῦ θεραπεύειν . . .
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 311 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
83
Sizgorich (2007), 89. The emperors preceding Theodosius are also depicted as not imposing their
private views on society (Oration 30.6, 30.53–4). This is a classical rhetorical trick: the emperor is
depicted as already subscribing to the argument proposed (cf. Oration 1.262).
84
Unsurprisingly given the legal nature of many of his orations, Libanius often refers to laws as the basis
for his arguments: Oration 33.15 refers to CTh 15.9.1; Oration 9.18 refers to CTh 16.10.10. The
references in Orations 39.13, 45.32 and 47.35 are harder to identify, as are the references in Oration 30.
85
One therefore need not be surprised that Libanius’ class, the curiales, hardly play a role in the
oration: they are absent because highlighting their role would suggest private interests: pace
Wiemer (2011a), 172–8.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 312 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
86
Van Nuffelen (2011), 52. 87 Wiemer (2011a), 172.
88
On the date, see Wiemer (1995a), 362–3.
89
Sandwell (2007a), 219–24. For the complexities of Libanius’ relationship with Julian, see Wiemer
(1995a).
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 313 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
90
Symmachus, Relatio 3. 91 Augustine, The City of God 1.1–2.
92
Cf. Straub (1972), Marcone (2002).
93
The idea of the creation of a neutral, secular space in Late Antiquity is expounded in Markus
(1990).
94
As is implied in the title of Nesselrath (ed.) (2011). See the different argument of Limberis (2000), 398
and Stenger (2009), 386–7.
C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/5039152/WORKINGFOLDER/VAHO/9781107013773C13.3D 314 [293–314] 22.5.2014 2:36PM
13.6 Conclusion
Libanius’ attitude towards religion may seem variable, even contradictory at
times: the downplaying of religion in personal exchanges sits side by side
with its instrumentalization in rhetoric and the belief in Graeco-Roman
religion as the basis for a stable empire. This chapter has emphasized that
one should first study the rhetorical argument as well as the social context of
each text of Libanius and that one cannot take his utterances as straightfor-
ward commitments to certain views about the position of religion in society.
In different contexts, different arguments can be produced. Whilst this
makes it more difficult to talk about Libanius’ convictions, I have suggested
that his choice for certain topics and certain arguments may allow us to
situate him within the religious spectrum of his age.
This chapter has confirmed a conclusion already drawn in the first
scholarship on Libanius: his religious views are strongly influenced by his
elite cultural outlook. Against the tendency to see Libanius as one of the last
representatives of that culture and to project that consciousness onto him,
I have argued that his attitude is best explained as expressing self-confidence
in the social position of the cultural tradition which Libanius stood for.
This confident position allowed for the bridging of differences to the
extent that one’s correspondents accepted to play the game on Libanius’
terms. At the same time, however, it also reconfirmed religious differences:
Libanius clearly could not abandon the religious aspect of traditional culture
and continuously emphasized the public importance of traditional cult.
Christians could be accepted as individuals but not as a group.
95
Themistius, Oration 5.68cd.