AA Emperor and Priest

Acta Ant. Hung. 50, 2010, 419–430 DOI: 10.1556/AAnt.50.2010.4.5

0044-5975 / $ 20.00 © 2010 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

KATALIN K. CSÍZY

EMPEROR AND PRIEST

Summary: Based on the evidence of the pagan philosophical and rhetorical tradition, this study investi-gates the changes of the spiritual background of the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. The central concern of the present paper is to examine how Neoplatonic religious thoughts are formulated in the mirrors for princes as a principal idea to the image of a Christian ruler, and which elements of the ruler’s canon are emphasized in some sources of Antiquity.

Key words: charity, chréstotés, Christianity, Church, Cicero, Diotogenes, eusebeia, Eusebius, force, imi-tatio Dei, Isocrates, Julian the Apostate, just, moderation, Neoplatonic, paganism, philanthropy, pietas, pious, Platon, Platonic, Porphyry, Pythagorean, Sthenidas, Stobaeus, Themistius, theosebeia, utile, wisdom

“There are however three peculiar employments of a king: leading an army, administering justice, and worshipping the Gods. He will be able to lead an army properly only if he knows how to carry on war properly. He will be skilled in administering justice and in gov-erning all his subjects only if he has well learned the nature of justice and law. He will worship the gods in a pious and holy manner only if he has diligently considered the nurture and virtue of God… a good king must necessarily be a good general, judge and priest; which things are inseparable from the goodness and virtue of a king.” (Diotogenes: On Kingship 4. 7. 61 [transl. P. Roussel])

As the motto of my study I have chosen the words of Diotogenes which were pre-served by John Stobaeus in his Anthology from the early 5th century AD. The Pseudo-Pythagorean writing may date back to the time between the 3rd century BC and the 2nd century AD.

The legislator or ruler must be a priest at the same time – this idea is rooted in the area of philosophy, and was later designated by the epithet of the imperator Chris-

420 KATALIN K. CSÍZY

Acta Ant. Hung. 50, 2010

tianissimus.1 The ideal of the Christian ruler as well as its European image has gained its shape from Constantine’s kingship on, although he had become a Christian just before his death. What could have been the reason of this change? On the one hand, it might have been due to the political supremacy of the Roman Empire: as Christianity became a religio licita (313 AD) and then an accepted imperial religion (394–395 AD). However, we can perceive the congruence of power and religion, which is a suitable breeding ground for the new ideology. The Roman emperor is a pater pat-riae – the father of the homeland; pius – pious, dutiful; felix – fruitful, blessed; pro-pagator imperii – extender of the empire; pacator – peace-maker; invictus – uncon-quered; invictissimus – the most unconquered.2 The values of the pagan traditions are filled with a new content by Christianity, completing them with its own interpreta-tion. One of the most important terms both in the Christian and the pagan context is the idea of pius – pietas, in Greek eÙsebe…a, ÐsiÒthj.3 Theosebeia, the fear of God replaces eusebeia, the ruler, the extender of the empire (propagator imperii) will be the extender of the Church (propagator ecclesiae), who is a model with his good deeds (euergesia) and his Christian charity (charitas).4

Based on the evidence of the pagan philosophical and rhetorical tradition, this study investigates the changes of the spiritual background of Late Antiquity. The pagan divinities were venerated by a great number of the aristocracy after the spread-ing of Christianity in the 4–6th century BC,5 e.g. by Macrobius or Proclus, who could not only influence those practising the pagan cults but who also had an effect on Christian theologians like Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventura.6

The teaching of Late Antiquity and the idea of a philosopher-king were in-spired by the Neoplatonic philosophy, which based on Platonic, Peripatetic and Stoic thoughts. This Neoplatonic philosophical school was closely connected with the highest circles and the political elite of the Roman Empire.7 Let us survey the teach-ing methods of Neoplatonists in a nutshell. In what ways could someone become an educated Roman citizen? What could pupils learn from their teachers?

There was a certain scale of virtues in the Neoplatonic system, discussed by Plotinus, Porphyry, Marinus and Olympiodorus as well.8 We can read about the four

1 In Ambrosius’ writing the emperor’s address is christianissime principum, as in Gratianus’ case,

380 AD, then in the case of Valentinianus II in 384 AD. Another example is Theodosius, who is ad-dressed as imperator Christianissimus in his missorium in his large ceremonial silver dish, lacking the Christian attributes, which nevertheless is a portrait of an imperator Christianissimus. KOLB, F.: Herr-scherideologie in der Spätantike. Berlin 2001, 91ff. and 114, 225.

2 KOLB (n. 1) 29–30, 55ff. 3 O’MEARA, D. J.: Platonopolis. Platonical Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford 2003, 120. 4 Eus. Praep. ev. I 1. 2–6; VC IV 21.1 –26. 6; I 43. 1; IV 28; KOLB (n. 1) 133. 5 PIEPENBRINK, K.: Antike und Christentum. Darmstadt 2007, 82–83 and 96ff. 6 HÜTTIG, A.: Macrobius im Mittelalter [Freiburger Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte Bd.

2]. Frankfurt am Main 1990, esp. 75ff. 7 O’MEARA (n. 3) 26. 8 Porph. Sent. 32; Marinos, Vita Procl. 18; Olympiodoros, In Phaed. 8. 2. HADOT, I.: Le problème

du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiérocles et Simplicius. Paris 1978, 152–158; FESTUGIÈRE, A. J.: L’ordre de lecture des dialogues de Platon aux V/Vie siècles. Museum Helveticum 26 (1969) 281–296; DILLON,

EMPEROR AND PRIEST 421


levels of this scale in Macrobius’ writing (Somn. I 8. 5–6) based on Plotinus: virtutes politicae – political virtues, purgatoriae – purificatory, animi iam purgati – theoreti-cal and exemplares – paradigmatic virtues.9 These levels represented the soul ap-proaching God or divinity. The whole process is called divinization (theosis) that really meant the imitation of divine life (imitatio Dei). The purifying soul had a lead-ing part in this progress. The verb pio in Latin (‘purify with sacred rites’) and euse-beo in Greek symbolize the essence of the purificatory process. The well-known four cardinal virtues of Plato (prudentia – wisdom, fortitudo – force, temperantia – mod-eration, iustitia – just) are in focus and they are accompanied by derivative virtues (Somn. I 8. 6). Political virtue is the most important because it presupposes the order of the soul, which is the base of social and political life, without which a well-edu-cated Roman citizen cannot exist. According to the degrees of virtues, a scale and order of sciences had also developed. This system was the key to successful educa-tion. The first triad included the circle of practical sciences, i.e. politics, economics and ethics; the second triad was formed by the theoretical sciences, i.e. theology or metaphysics, then mathematics and physics.10 These practical and theoretical sci-ences were in connection with the scale of virtues. We are in possession of Iam-blichus’ Platonic curriculum reconstructed by Westerink: political virtues fit practical sciences, purificatory fits neither of them, and theoretical virtues fit theoretical sci-ences. Paradigmatic virtues are missing from this overview.11

There was a certain line of reading to attain the sciences and to achieve the higher grades of virtues as an obligatory literature for the students of philosophy. Some lists are offered by Ammonius, Damascius, Proclus and other Neoplatonists, on the other hand, Platonic, (Pseudo-) Pythagorean, Aristotelian and Stoic works are included in this corpus.12 The political virtues (virtutes politicae) were established by the Pseudo-Pythagorean Golden Verses, which was considered as a preparatory to Plato’s works, i.e. Plato’s Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, Apology and Republic, then Aristotle’s writings, the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, Magna Moralia, Economics, completed with Neoplatonic commentaries (Iamblichus, Porphyry, Pro-clus, Simplicius etc.), as well as some speeches of Isocrates (Ad Demonicum, Ad Nicoclem, Nicocles). The level of theoretical virtue (animi iam purgati) is based on

———— J.: Plotinus, Philo and Origen on the Grades of Virtue. In BLUME, H. D. – MANN, F. (ed.): Platonismus und Christentum (Festschrift H. Dörrie). Münster 1983, 92–105, esp. 100.

09 Macrobius, Commentarii in somnium Scipionis. Ed. J. WILLIS. Leipzig 1970. O’MEARA (n. 3) 44. 10 “The Aristotelian division of the sciences [of theoretical and practical sciences – K. Cs. K.] had

already been adopted by Platonists in the first and second centuries AD. […] Alcinous adds yet a third branch ‛dialectic’ (including logic), under the influence of another very widespread Hellenistic division of philosophy into physics, ethics and logic (or ‛dialectic’).” O’MEARA (n. 3) 53; DILLON, J.: Alcinous and the Handbook of Platonism. Oxford 1993, 57–58; DÖRRIE, H. – BALTES, M.: Der Platonismus in der Antike. Stuttgart 1993–1996, IV 214–216; MARÓTH, M.: Die Araber und die antike Wissenschaftstheorie. Leiden – New York – Köln 1994, 153ff.

11 Anonymus, Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon. Ed. and transl. L. G. WESTERINK, J. TROUILLARD and A. SEGONDS. Paris 1990, LVIII–LXXIII and ch. 26. 16–44; quoted by O’MEARA (n. 3) 63.

12 O’MEARA (n. 3) 60.



Cratylus, Sophist, Statesman, then Phaedrus, Symposium, Philebus, Timaeus and Par-menides.13

The central concern of the present essay is to examine how these Neoplatonic religious thoughts are formulated in the mirrors for princes as a principal idea to the image of a Christian ruler, and which elements of the ruler’s canon are emphasized in the sources examined.14 I shall not consider the textual history of the quoted works, my purpose is to show and analyze the religious inherence of these texts.

Firstly, one of the sources is an Isocratic speech, Ad Nicoclem, one of the fa-mous Cyprian speeches, which was mentioned above and referred to political vir-tue.15 This mirror for princes was probably formulated in 374 BC, after Nicocles’ succession to the throne. The fifty-four chapters were a collection of orders written all in the imperative and it can be regarded as an admonition, as well. First of all, let me select the thoughts relating to the veneration of Gods or to religion. There are three such chapters (ch. 5, ch. 6 and ch. 20) by Isocrates:

(5) “they all think that those who are in position of kings are the equals of the gods” – „soqšouj ¤pantej nom…zousi toÝj ™n ta‹j monarc…aij Ôntaj (6) “that men believe that the office of king is, like that of priest, one which any man can fill, whereas it is the most important of human func-tions and demands the greatest wisdom” – T¾n basile…an ésper ƒerw-sÚnhn pantÕj ¢ndrÕj eŁnai nom…zousin, Ö tîn ¢nqrwp…nwn pragm£-twn mšgiston ™sti kaˆ ple…sthj prono…aj deÒmenon.16

It is remarkable that the ruling and priestly dignities are in co-ordinate relation in this text. According to the source the emperor obtains the right to rule through consensus. Wisdom (prono…a) is the only criterion of the position regarding the highest dignity.

In ch. 20 we can read the following lines about the fulfilment of the duty to the

gods:

(20) “In the worship of the gods, follow the example of your ancestors, but believe that the noblest sacrifice and the greatest devotion is to show yourself in the highest degree a good and just man (bšltiston kaˆ di-kaiÒtaton); for such men have greater hope of enjoying a blessing from the gods than those who slaughter many victims.”

13 O’MEARA (n. 3) 63–67. 14 There is an excellent collection of mirrors for princes in Hungary: HAVAS, L. – KISS, S. (ed.):

Uralkodó és polgár antik tükörben I–II [Emperor and Citizen in the Mirror of Antiquity]. [Agatha XXI]. Debrecen 2007, 195ff.

15 Isocrates, Opera omnia. Vol. II. Ed. B. G. MANDILARAS. Monachii et Lipsiae 2003, 28–45. 16 Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes. Ed. G. NORLIN. Cambridge–London

1980.



Isocrates admonished Nicocles through using superlatives (ch. 20 ¼gou dł qàma toàto k£lliston eŒnai kaˆ qerape…an meg…sthn) that virtue has certain grades. The individual’s and the ruler’s aim is to get close to the gods through virtue.

The emperor’s relationship to the gods is a token of happiness in the commu-nity. The state reflects the mentality of its ruler, as Isocrates wrote in ch. 10.17 The destiny of the community or the subjects is defined by the emperor’s quality, so the destiny of the whole is determined by the leading part.

The following virtues are basically important: a wise legislation and respect for the law (ch. 17) and a high valuation of truth (ch. 22), furthermore mildness resulting from good education (ch. 8), courtesy and dignity (ch. 34) and the sense of duty (chs 9 and 15). Philanthropy causes the ruler to take care of his subjects like a good phy-sician (¥rista tÕ plÁqoj qerapeÚwsin), and it helps him avoid hybris:

(16) “You will be a wise leader of the people if you do not allow the multitude either to do or to suffer outrage, but see to it that the best among them shall have the honors, while the rest shall suffer no impair-ment of their rights; for these are the first and most important elements of good government.”

The thoughts on philanthropy are concluded by Isocrates saying that the em-peror should have invariable judgements of the question of justice (ch. 18 – pršpei kaˆ sumfšrei t¾n tîn basilšwn gnèmhn ¢kin»twj œcein perˆ tîn dika…wn). A good ruler has respect for the right laws (ch. 22), but he can change them if required: the only fundamental criteria are justice, expediency and consistency with each other (ch. 17 – Z»tei nÒmouj tÕ młn sÚmpan dika…ouj kaˆ sumfšrontaj kaˆ sf…sin aÙto‹j Ðmologoumšnouj.). We have a term for ‛expediency’, sympheron, then opheleia in chs 8 and 12, furthermore chraomai when talking about using power in ch. 26, then chrésimon about the judgement of people (ch. 50). As Isocrates for-mulated this idea concerning his work and his own personality in the introductory chapter (ch. 2). A good counsellor is the most useful (ch. 53 sÚmbouloj ¢gaqÕj crhsimètaton ™st…n) and the admonition of Isocrates is the most serviceable pre-sent (ch. 2 crhsimwt£th dwre£) for Nicocles.

The next work, Cicero’s On Duties (De officiis) is classified in the genre of mirror for citizens showing the ideal of a responsible politician and the right moral of government officials. Everybody can become a leading politician, who is suitable and whose education enables him to attain a high position in society. Cicero wrote his philosophical work to his son, Marcus, in 44 BC. Primarily, his purpose was to show the Roman ideal of the vir bonus as a mirror for his son and for all who had chosen the practical political way of life. The Roman author formulated Panaetius’ Stoic ideal, because it was based on the work Peri tou kathékontos, the Treatise on Duty.18

17 (10) “… for it is evident that they will reign well or ill according to the manner in which they

equip their own minds.” NORLIN (n. 16). 18 POHLENZ, M.: Antikes Führertum. Cicero De officiis und das Lebensideal des Panaitios. Leip-

zig–Berlin 1934, 12ff.



Panaetius’ work was considered important for the Neoplatonic pupils.19 We have to concentrate on the following two points: the terminology of honestum and utile, honesty or moral rectitude, and the expediency, the analysis of which is very important regarding mirrors (see De off. I 3. 9 and II 3. 9–10).20 Expediency did not mean what the modern term of utility (utilitas) or utilitarianism does, which was separated from the norms of the community, but it meant the political goal of taking action for the community. This ideal appeared in Plato’s Republic (“the most benefi-cial is affirmed to be the most honourable” [457B: tÕ młn çfšlimon kalÒn]), then there is another reference in Aristotle’s Politic – zoon politikon: the goal of an indi-vidual is the public or political mode of existence which can be based only on the principle of expediency. One can be useful according to the judgement of virtue as Cicero himself said:21

II 5. 17 Cum igitur hic locus nihil habeat dubitationis, quin homines plu-rimum hominibus et prosint et obsint, proprium hoc statuo esse virtutis, conciliare animos hominum et ad usus suos adiungere. Itaque, quae in rebus inanimis quaeque in usu et tractatione beluarum fiunt utiliter ad hominum vitam, artibus ea tribuuntur operosis, hominum autem studia, ad amplificationem nostrarum rerum prompta ac parata, virorum praestantium sapientia et virtute excitantur.22

My second point from Cicero’s work is connected to the duties:

II 3. 11 (...) Ratione autem utentium duo genera ponunt, deorum unum, alterum hominum. Deos placatos pietas efficiet et sanctitas; proxime autem et secundum deos homines hominibus maxime utiles esse pos-sunt.23

Let us refer to the commentary of Professor Havas, where the term of worship or piety (pietas) is contrasted with bravery (virtus), although the two appeared to-gether on the famous clipeus virtutis of August.24 Bravery (virtus) served as the indi-

19 THEILER, W.: Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus. Berlin–Zürich 1964, 134ff. 20 An Elementary Latin Dictionary. LEWIS, CH. T. New York – Cincinnati – Chicago 1890;

Cicero, De Officiis. Ed., transl. by W. MILLER. Cambridge 1913. Book II – Expediency. HAVAS–KISS (n. 14) 290ff. çfšlimon (utile – expediency) can be judged through kalÒn (honestum – moral rectitude). In the Stoic usage cr»simon and sumfšron are next to the term çfšlimon. POHLENZ (n. 18) 90 and 91.

21 De Officiis ad Marcum Filium M. Tulli Ciceronis Libri Tres. Ed. J. H. PARKER. Oxford–Lon-don 1955.

22 “Since, therefore, there can be no doubt on this point, that man is the source of both the greatest help and the greatest harm to man, I set it down as the peculiar function of virtue to win the hearts of men and to attach them to one’s own service. And so those benefits that human life derives from inanimate objects and from the employment and use of animals are ascribed to the industrial arts; the cooperation of men, on the other hand, prompt and ready for the advancement of our interests, is secured through wis-dom and virtue [in men of superior (18) ability].” MILLER (n. 20).

23 “… of rational beings two divisions are made – gods and men. Worship and purity of character will win the favour of the gods; and next to the gods, and a close second to them, men can be most help-ful to men.” MILLER (n. 20).

24 The four virtues of clipeus virtutis are virtus, clementia, iustitia, pietas.



vidual excellence, in contrast, piety (pietas) emphasized co-operation and later be-came like clemency or mildness (clementia).25 Moderation (moderatio) and piety (pietas) exist as a measure of political practise and action.26 It is essential, regarding this overview, that we can certify a great effect of Cicero’s De Officiis on Christian authors, e.g. in the case of Ambrosius’ De Officiis Magistrorum and Augustinus’ De civitate Dei.27

In a certain sense, the Pseudo-Pythagorean works are closely connected both to paganism and Christianity. One was mentioned in the introduction. The chronology of these writings is doubtful. They may date back to the time between the third cen-tury BC and second century AD or later.28 They are the works of Diotogenes and Sthenidas, i.e. the treatises On Kingship and On Piety (Peri hosiotétos). The connec-tion of royal dignity and piety (hosiotés) is proved through these sources expressis verbis. We can read the following line of thoughts in Diotogenes’ On Kingship (Stob. 4. 7. 61, Hense 263–264):

If a king is a good ruler, he is the most just (dikaiotatos). If he is the most just, then he is “who most closely attends to the laws” (nomimotatos). If he attends to the laws, then “he will worship the gods in a pious and holy manner” (qerapeÚen dł toÝj qeoÝj eÙsebîj kaˆ Ðsiîj). “He will worship the gods in a pious and holy manner only if he has diligently considered the nurture and virtue of God”.29 If he worships the gods in a pious and holy manner, he is a good priest (hiereus), so the ruler is a good priest. The good priest is “himself animated law” or “closely attends to the laws” (nÒmoj ™myucÕj À nÒmimoj ¥rcwn, Stob. 4. 7. 61, Hense 263), who lives in harmony with the cosmos. “A good king must necessarily be a good general, judge and priest; which things are inseparable from the goodness and virtue of a king.” (Stob. 4. 7. 61, Hense 264 éste ¢n£gka tÕn tšlVon basilša strathgÒn te ¢gaqÕn Ãmen kaˆ dikast¦n kaˆ ƒerša.)

Other three demands appear in this religious context: a good king has a vener-able gravity (semnos – 4. 7. 62, Hense 267), he is magnanimous (megalopsychos –

25 HAVAS–KISS (n. 14) 397 and 398. 26 Cic. De Off. II 13. 46 Ut igitur in reliquis rebus multo maiora opera sunt animi quam corporis,

sic eae res quas ingenio ac ratione persequimur, gratiores sunt quam illae, quas viribus. Prima igitur commendatio proficiscitur a modestia, tum pietate in parentes, in suos benivolentia. – “As, then, in everything else brain-work is far more important than mere hand-work, so those objects which we strive to attain through intellect and reason gain for us a higher degree of gratitude than those which we strive to gain by physical strength. The best recommendation, then, that a young man can have to popular esteem proceeds from self-restraint, filial affection, and devotion to kinsfolk.” MILLER (n. 20).

27 HAVAS–KISS (n. 14) 300; NELSON, N. E.: Cicero’s De Officiis in Christian Thought: 300–1300. In Essays and Studies in English and Comparative Literature [University of Michigan Publications: Lan-guage and Literature 10]. Ann Arbor 1933, 59–160.

28 HAVAS–KISS (n. 14) 677; CHESNUT, G. F.: The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius. Macon, Ga. 1986, 143ff.; CHESNUT, G. F.: The Ruler and the Logos in Neopythagoren, Middle Platonic, and Late Stoic Political Philosophy. ANRW 16.2 (1978) 1310–1332, esp. 1310ff.; GOODENOUGH, E. R.: The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship. Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928) 55–102, esp. 55ff.; THESLEFF, H.: An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of Hellenistic Period. Acta Academica Aboensis, Humaniora. Vol. 24, Nr. 3. Abo, 1961, 7–8.

29 The English quotations are from Roussel’s related work: The Complete Pythagoras. Ed., transl. by P. ROUSSEL. http://www.completepythagoras.net/.



4. 7. 62, Hense 267) and benign (chréstos – 4. 7. 62, Hense 267) through his benefits (euergesia – Stob. 4. 7. 62, Hense 265 and 270), furthermore he is formidable (dei-nos – Stob. 4. 7. 62, Hense 266–267 and 270). It is significant from the present point of view that benign – chréstos (4. 7. 62, Hense 267 and 270) can be interpreted as expedient or useful regarding Cicero’s text.30 The king will be benign if he is useful for the society, if he is a just man (Stob. 4. 7. 62, Hense 268):

“Generally, any king who is just (dikaios), equitable (epieikés) and bene-ficent (eugnomon) will be benign. Justice is a connective and collective communion, and is that disposition of the soul which adapts itself to those near us.”

It is principally important for a ruler to imitate the gods, because “a kingdom is something resembling the divine” (qeÒmimÒn ™nti pr©gma – Stob. 4. 7. 62, Hense 270).

It is not accidental that Stobaeus continued his Florilegium with a similarly ti-tled work of Sthenidas (Stob. 4. 7. 63, Hense 270–271). Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient knowledge about the author, who wrote as follows: “A king will imi-tate the First God in the most excellent manner” (Stob. 4. 7. 63, Hense 270). We have an interpretation of this indication; the First God (singular masculine!) is the father and ruler of all and possesses all wisdom (sophia) in himself, but the king “acquires science through time” (Stob. 4. 7. 63, Hense 270). Going back to Diotogenes we have another relevant part in his work, On Piety (Peri hosiotétos), i.e. we are in rela-tionship with the gods, as follows (Stob. 4. 1. 133, Hense 80):

“For since we proceed from him and participate in a divine nature (¢p' aÙtîn ™smšn kaˆ kekoinwn»kamen tù qe…J), we should honour him.”

They themselves want us to act justly resembling them (boÚlontai „kšlwj aÙto‹j ¹m©j ™pitelšen dikaiopragšontaj – Stob. 4. 1. 133, Hense 80).

The new period from the beginning of Diocletian’s reign, the era of the domi-nate is reflected in the official royal propaganda. The Caesar will be Dominus et Deus, his divine descent receives primary importance.31 Due to the public policy of the Empire, the rulers appeared as progenies of Jupiter and Hercules. Constantine the Great distanced himself from the pagan Herculean title of emperors,32 and opposed to Licinius he became the defender of Christians. The emphasized cult of Sol prepared the triumph of Christianity. The young Apollo became similar to Jesus, as well as a kosmokrator.33

The Triakontaeterikos of Eusebius of Caesarea, i.e. the Praise of Constantine (Laus Constantini) was an anniversary laudation of Constantine’s thirty-year reign.34

30 LSJ, s.v. chréstos and chréstotés. 31 KOLB (n. 1) 22. 32 KOLB (n. 1) 58 and 59. 33 KOLB (n. 1) 63ff. 34 Eusebius, Über das Leben des Constantins, Constantins Rede an die heilige Versammlung, Tri-

cennatsrede an Constantin. Vol. I. Ed. I. A. HEIKEL. Leipzig 1902 and Berlin 1975. In Praise of Con-stantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations. Ed. by H. A. DRAKE.



The praise was presented by the author in Constantinople on the 25th July in 336 AD. It was the first description of a Christian emperor next to the Vita Constantini.35 Thus it became the paradigmatic mirror for princes founding the imperial idea of the Middle Ages, and later it would be a model for each work in this genre of literature and history.36

The universal celestial kingdom is the archetypical idea of the terrestrial reign (Triak. III 5). This was the legitimation of the imperial power for the people of the Middle Ages.37 The celestial kingdom is eternal and this idea of eternity (aeternitas) secured the continuation of the Roman Empire (Triak. VI 1).38 According to Esuse-bius, a Christian monarchy is opposed to a polytheistic anarchy (Triak. III 6), where many gods are respected, but none are venerated. Thus, in his view, polytheism is equal to atheism.39 The emperor can be identified with Jesus Christ, who is the royal Word (basilikos logos) in the world (Triak. III 6 and VI 9). The author lets us know that the Caesar and the imperial power belong to the celestial sphere.40 Constantine leads the subjects of his empire to Jesus and to the Heavenly Kingdom or Sover-eignty, he purifies the state through his godliness (eusebeia), so he will be the saviour of mankind (Triak. V 5 and XI 1). The term of eusebeia alternating with theosebeia was used more than thirty times by Eusebius, who formulated his message through this notion. It is notable that the other important notion, ‘philanthropy’ (philanthro-pia) or godliness arises only very few times, so in XI 5 “gracious Word” and “as a gracious Saviour and Physician of the soul” (philanthropos logos – philanthropos so-ter kai psychon iatros). The emperor becomes a mediator between heaven and earth, and has a definite task as a godly man.41 The sources of Eusebius of Caesarea were not only the Platonic dialogues, but we also know that he had relied on Iamlichus’ writings and Pseudo-Pythagorean works, i.e. Ecphantus, Sthenidas and Diotogenes.42 Eusebius formulated the connection of the Roman Empire with Christianity and the Church as a brilliant political publicist. The ruler will be Christ’s vicar conserv- ing the existing system according to God’s will and his main goal is to maintain peace.43 So we are at the starting-point of the idea of a Christian ruler. This ideal will be completed with Christian humility, which interestingly appeared in the description

———— Classical Studies 15 (1976); Eusebius of Caesarea, In Praise of the Emperor Constantine. Pronunced on the Thirtieth Anniversary of his Reign. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/eusebius/euseprai.html. Transl. by J. VANDERSPOEL.

35 BRANDT, H.: Nagy Konstantin, az első keresztény uralkodó [Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor]. Hung. transl. by K. T. BÍRÓ. Budapest 2007, 42 and 105.

36 KAPITÁNFFY, I. – CARUHA, V. – SZABÓ, K.: A bizánci és az újgörög irodalom története [The History of Byzantine and Modern Greek Literature]. Budapest 1989, 42; STRAUB, J.: Vom Herrscher-ideal in der Spätantike. Stuttgart 1939, 118.

37 O’MEARA. (n. 3) 146. 38 KOLB (n. 1) 70. 39 O’MEARA (n. 3) 147. 40 KOLB (n. 1) 70. 41 STRAUB (n. 36) 121. 42 O’MEARA (n. 3) 148ff. 43 STRAUB (n. 36) 117 and 118.



of a pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate, by Ammianus Marcellinus (XXII 7. 1 – hu-milior princeps visus est).44

Finally, let us briefly investigate two epistle fragments of Julian the Apostate, namely fragments 89a and 89b. The epistle probably dates back to January 363 AD. Julian wrote about the office of a priest and formulated the right royal behaviour at the same time.45 Julian as a supreme pontiff (pontifex maximus) tried to restore the pagan cults turning his back on to Christianity. His faith was based on Neoplatonic philosophy.46 He referred to these fundamentals in a passage of his letter (frg. 89a). The following virtues fit a leader properly, who might as well be a priest or a ruler (89a, 453a): fairness (epieikeia), goodness or expediency (chréstotés) and benevo-lence or philanthropy (philanthropia). Concerning philanthropy: who behaves unjustly “must either be admonished with plain speaking or chastised with great severity.”47 The interpretation of philanthropy or benevolence fits into tradition in so far as it appears in connection with punishment. Misanthropy is in opposition to philan-thropy in fragment 89b. In this chapter (89b, 288b), Julian scourges the improper way of life that is separated from society.48 The Roman citizen exists as a social and civi-lized being (zoon politikon), hence he is a priest. Caesar’s goal is formulated in his writing and policy, which is embodied by a pagan state based on Christian norms. He wanted to realize his concepts against Constantine’s policy. It was difficult to find an answer to the question, to what extent Julian’s work bears the marks or features of a Christian ruler. No doubt, Caesar’s models were Christian agapé, philoxenia and phi-lanthropia,49 but philanthropy is in the first place originated from the following fea-tures: 'Askhtša to…nun prÕ p£ntwn ¹ filanqrwp…a (89b, 289a), and is completed with reverence, godliness or piety (eusebeia) – 'Arktšon dł ¹m‹n tÁj prÕj toÝj qeoÝj eÙsebe…aj (89b, 299b).50

44 KOLB (n. 1) 135. 45 L’empereur Julien, Œuvres complètes. Tom. I2: Lettres et fragments. Ed. J. BIDEZ. Paris 1972,

102ff. 46 BIDEZ, J.: Julian der Abtrünnige. München 1940, 76ff.; BOUFFARTIGUE, J.: L’empereur Julien

et la culture de son temps. Paris 1992, 25ff., 51ff., 301ff., 413; ASMUS, R.: Der Alkibiades-Kommentar des Jamblichos als Hauptquelle für Kaiser Julian [Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften]. Heidelberg 1917, 6ff.; WALLIS, R. T.: Neo-Platonism. Bristol 1972, 94ff.; K. CSÍZY, K.: Proverbiumok és proverbiális kifejezések Iulianus Apostata beszédeiben [Proverbs and proverbial phrases in speeches of Julian the Apostate]. Piliscsaba 2006, 205ff.; K. CSÍZY, K.: Die Definition der Philosophie in den Werken von Julian dem Abtrünnigen. Acta Ant. Hung. 47 (2007) 421–431, esp. 421ff.

47 The whole passage 453a reads as follows: “Now the qualities that befit one in this high office are, in the first place, fairness, and next, goodness and benevolence towards those who deserve to be treated thus. For any priest who behaves unjustly to his fellow men and impiously towards the gods, or is overbearing to all, must either be admonished with plain speaking or chastised with great severity.” The Works of the Emperor Julian in three volumes. Ed., transl. by W. C. WRIGHT. London–Cambridge, Mass. 1913, Vol. II 1923: “Letter to a priest”. Cf. Verg. Aen. VI 853: parcere subiectis. KABIERSCH, J.: Untersu-chungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian. Wiesbaden 1960, 15.

48 89b, 288b: “Some men there are also who, though man is naturally a social and civilized being, seek out desert places instead of cities, since they have been given over the evil demons and are led by them into this hatred of their kind.” WRIGHT (n. 47).

49 KABIERSCH. (n. 47) 27. 50 89b, 289ab: “You must above all exercise philanthropy, for from it result many other blessings,

and moreover that choicest, and greatest blessing of all, the good will of the gods.” 89b, 299b: “The first



Philanthropy exists as a basis of piety (eusebeia) which can be realized through following the gods.51 This important philosophical background was formulated in a well-known Neoplatonic work, the Letter to Marcella, written by Porphyry: ¢ll¦ krhpˆj eÙsebe…aj soi nomizšsqw ¹ filanqrwp…a (Porph. ad Marc. 35). Philan-thropy came to be identified with eusebeia in the writing of a famous contemporary, Themistius, and it became the most important virtue of emperor.52

The aim of this paper has been to find answers to three questions: firstly, how the Christian ideal of a king is formulated by the royal propaganda regarding the royal sovereignty taking its origin from heaven. Due to this idea the person of a king on earth becomes a heavenly being.

My second question was what kind of relationship a priest-king as a supreme pontiff had to the gods or to God. Finally the third question was how goodness and expediency (chréstotés, chréstos and utile) could appear in this religious context.

Firstly, owing to the Neoplatonic tradition the emperor appears in sources as a godly person whose main duty is to follow God/the gods.53 For Christianity, this principle is embodied in an absolute monarchy or sovereignty. The king is chosen by God and reigns from God’s grace (Dei gratia). The idea of a recallable emperor was preserved by the pagan thinkers for cases when the ruler could not fulfil his duties properly. The emperor had to prove his suitability till the end of his life, so Isocrates, Julian and Themistius.54 At the end of this process a state is reached that extends into the divine sphere.55

Then the sovereign’s relationship to God or the gods was examined through the term of piety (pietas – eusebeia). While especially in the writings of pagan authors piety was identified with philanthropy, the notion of eusebeia became similar to the fear of God (theosebeia) in Eusebius of Caesarea.56

Thirdly, the terms chréstos, chréstotés and Cicero’s utile were considered. An active way of life that helps the citizens and is useful for them was primarily stressed

———— thing we ought to preach is reverence towards the gods. For it is fitting that we should perform our ser-vice to the gods as though they were themselves present with us and beheld us, and though not seen by us could direct their gaze, which is more powerful than any light, even as far as our hidden thoughts.” 89b, 305a “And a proof of his love for God is his inducing his own people to show reverence to the gods; a proof of his love for his fellow is his sharing cheerfully, even from a small store, with those in need, and his giving willingly thereof, and trying to do good to as many men as he is able.” Transl. WRIGHT (n. 47).

51 KABIERSCH (n. 47) 49. 52 Them. Or. I; XV; XXXIV, 23 – the two terms are equal. KABIERSCH (n. 47) 55. 53 WALLIS (n. 46) 3; O’MEARA (n. 3) 31. The assimilation to God was a very important aim of

Neoplatonic philosophy, which was consulted by the Syrian Ammonios in the 4th and 5th century AD. He had a commentary to Porphyry’s Isagoge. K. CSÍZY (n. 46) 424–427; K. CSÍZY, K.: Über die Relation zwischen den Tugenden eines Priesters und eines Herrschers. Acta Ant. Hung. 50 (2010) 79–87, esp. 85–86; K. CSÍZY, K.: Porphyrios, tÁj ¢lhqinÁj sof…aj ™rast»j. Acta Ant. Hung. 47 (2007) 227–236, esp. 231 and 233.

54 KOLB (n. 1) 128. 55 O’MEARA (n. 3) 29, 69ff.: ‛The Divinization of the State’. 56 In Vanderspoel’s English translation ‘piety’, too, but the two terms are not of the same mean-

ing. Cf. n. 34.



in pagan sources. This virtue lives on in the Christian literature of the Middle Ages, but it is not really emphasized by Eusebius.

In summary, “to follow the gods” or “to follow God” and “the imitation of God” (imitatio Dei) is based on Plato’s Theaetetus and was a royal idea, meaning the assimilation of the soul to God. It was a fundamental requirement for the ruler in all sources whether Christian or pagan. Such a thinking rooted in Plato’s teaching impli-cated the god-fearing (theosebés) behaviour which was a basic attitude of the soul in the Middle Ages. This mental attitude seems to gradually vanish from modern soci-ety. Finally, I want to refer to Diotogenes’ On Piety (Peri hosiotétos, Stob. 4. 1. 96, Hense 36) cited above:

“It is necessary that the laws should not be enclosed in houses, or by ga-tes, but in manners of the citizens. Which, therefore is the basic principle of any state? The education of the youth.”

These few lines show us that the interpretation of royal ideas is not a useless task, because this tradition of moral literature, i.e. the genre of admonitions or mirrors for princes is no other than a moral parable for the rising generation of the future.

Katalin K. Csízy Faculty of Modern Philology and Social Sciences University of Pannonia Egyetem u. 10. H-8200 Veszprém Hungary

AA Emperor and Priest

Documents

Transcript of AA Emperor and Priest