Emperor Julian, also known as the Apostate, remains an enigmatic figure of history.

He is remembered mainly as the emperor who tried to turn back the clock and reverse what

his uncle, Constantine the Great, had already set in motion, namely the state protection and

promotion of Christianity. He sought to restore the pagan religions to their former glory by

reinstating certain beneficial rights and privileges previously revoked by Constantine. Though

he reigned as emperor for less than two years, 361 to 363, his reign was full of activity. Rather

than stick to the status quo of his Constantinian predecessors, Julian enacted several laws that

reversed earlier reforms. At the same time Julian had to accept that many Christian leaders

held lofty positions in the cities as a result of Constantines benefaction. He was an adamant

opponent of Christianity, seeing its rise to power eclipsing the traditional worship of the gods.

This paper examines Julians philanthropic reforms as a reaction to the bishops rise to power

in the cities, and ultimately raises the question: Who was the custodian of the cities? The State

or the Church?

After the major religious changes Constantine made in the beginning of his reign,

Church leaders were now listed as tax exempt and were allowed to inherit lands. For the first

time in the empire, Church leaders held an immense amount of wealth, and thus control of

power and influence in the cities. Peter Browns book Power and Persuasion explains these

complex situations showing how Church leaders occupied the recently vacated positions of

State officials, and adopted their philanthropic responsibilities. This does not mean that the

Church did not pursue charitable acts in the cities before the reign of Constantine. In fact, by

250 the Church was already providing care for fifteen hundred poor and widows in Rome

alone. Other scholars assert that this number was as much as eighteen hundred. In either case,

the evidence suggests there was already a strong presence of Christian charity in the cities, but

this would be the first time where Christian charity would meld with the secular Philanthropia

of the civic officials. In doing so, these Church leaders were not only able to garner the loyalty

of the poor through almsgiving, but also, in the views of contemporaries, adopt the concept of

Philanthropia, establishing it as a Christian virtue.

Julian entered Constantinople as emperor in 361, ready to effectively undo what his

predecessors had put into place. The first step was to establish overall religious tolerance. No

longer would one religion be favored over the others, and now all could worship as they

pleased. This meant that temples closed by Constantine would now be reopened and, most

likely, repaired from damage or disuse. It is no surprise then that part of Julians first order of

reform was to focus his efforts on enhancing the well being of the cities. To accomplish this,

Julian used multiple strategies to increase his prospects of success. First, he established a

viable scapegoat in the original caretakers of the cities, the Curiales, members of the

mercantile class and upper-elite. Apparently these men shirked their duties, hardly

maintaining buildings and holding festivals in the cities. Instead, as Julian claims in the first

passage of the handout, they were busy using their money for private parties and indulging

those closest to them, while they ignored the welfare of the very buildings and people they

once cared for. He therefore establishes these men as a greedy lot who have lost sight of their

true responsibilities to Philanthropia. Such behavior was not only considered disgraceful to

Julian, but also a sacrilege to the gods who bestowed Philanthropia to humanity. Blaming the

Curiales greed, however, also seemed to serve another purpose. In claiming that these men

were greedy and the cause of poverty within the cities, Julian juxtaposed himself as the

philanthropic opposite. As we can see from the second passage of the handout in the italics

towards the bottom, Julian was now establishing himself as the nourisher of the cities, and

would do so through the use of his pagan priests and new religious hierarchy. Once he had

blamed the Curiales, the next step was to attack the Churchs use of Philanthropia.

Julian sharply criticized Christian Philanthropia in his letter to an unknown pagan

priest. In this letter, found on the second page of your handout in the top passage, Julian

depicts the Church leaders as slavers, enticing wandering converts with sweets, and then

enslaving their souls for eternity. The entire picture is rife with slanderous propaganda, but is

essential for Julians plan for reform. By depicting the Christian use of Philanthropia as being

similar to a slaver enticing their soon-to-be wares, Julian establishes the charitable acts of

bishops and other Church leaders as illegitimate and impious. Such a depiction easily allowed

him to set up his own pagan view of Philanthropia as being the only true and legitimate form

of philanthropy. To further his cause, Julian then established a legitimate origin for his

programs by linking his view of Philanthropia with Homers Odyssey, an example almost

everyone would have known or understood. Citing the scene where the old swineherd

Eumaeus invites a disguised Odysseus into his home, Julian used the hospitality of Eumaeus as

a prime example for his priests to follow. More importantly, he cited Homers adage, found in

the fourth passage of the handout,

It is not lawful for me, not even though a baser man than you should come, to dishonor a stranger. For from Zeus come all strangers and beggars. And a gift, though small, is precious.

Citing this adage in both his Letter to a Priest and Letter to Arsacius, High Priest of Galatia

suggests that it held an integral part in Julians philanthropic reforms. For Julian,

Philanthropias legitimate pagan origins established what he saw as a strong foundation for his

reforms and religious program. In conjunction with the defamation of the Church and its

leaders, both would help create the firm building blocks for his programs. By defaming the

Church and its use of Philanthropia, Julian was throwing down the gauntlet, entering the

power struggle that was already taking place. In order to do compete well and seek victory, he

now needed to take action that followed his words.

Julian sent out letters, a fragment of which survives from the Church History of

Sozomen of Gaza, instructing his priests predominately on the decorum priests should follow

and virtues that should be exercised. One such virtue was Philanthropia, which should be

practiced above all other virtues. In fact, Julian expressed the importance of using similar

philanthropic strategies as that of the Church. Several historians, both ancient and modern,

interpreted Julians actions as copycat mimicry, and seemingly hypocritical and frankly

uncreative. While it is entertaining to think that Julian would act in such a paradoxical

manner, it is not wholly unrealistic. Julian himself admits that the Church had excelled in

converting followers using Philanthropia, even if it was illegitimate and impious, and the

stakes of his reforms were higher than ever. For Julian it did not matter how he won followers,

only that he would win followers, and the Churchs success rate, according to Julian, did not

lie in that respect. If he was to secure legitimacy for his reforms, he needed to win the

Churchs adherents over to his side. It was only natural then to use his knowledge of

Philanthropia with the charitable strategies he learned from either viewing the Church leaders

or from the tutelage of bishops from his youth. In either case, Julian was ready to do what was

necessary to make his vision a reality, even if it meant being a hypocrite. It suggests a sense of

desperation in his actions, but this should not be surprising. He must have understood how

difficult it would be to compete against an already wealthy and established Church with his

nascent pagan revival.

Julian also sent detailed instructions on how donations were to be distributed

amongst citizens. One such example can be found in his Letter to Arsacius, the High Priest of

Galatia. In it, Julian instructs that Arsacius will be given 30,000 pecks of grain and 60,000 pints

of wine for the cities of Galatia to be distributed among the poor, strangers, and beggars. He

also seems to have been concerned with how the entire distribution would be perceived by

others, as it was evident that Christians were providing for pagans and Christians alike, with

pagan providers nowhere to be seen. A definite pagan presence of philanthropy appears to be

Julians primary concern, but, again, he seems to be concerned with the question of who was

actually responsible for nurturing the cities: the emperor and the State, or the bishops and

the Church. But still the question remains: why did Julian consider the identity of

Philanthropia as a top priority with his reforms? What exactly was at stake within his new

reign?

It seems that, based on his writings, Julian is concerned about the welfare of the cities

and therefore, the citizens. However, if we scratch beneath the surface of this faade, we find a

deeper concern over control of power within the cities. Bishops won over loyal adherents for

their respective congregations by using Philanthropia and Julian appears to have no wish to

share power with them. Therefore, he sought to overtake them by using fire with fire,

attempting to legitimize Philanthropia and meld it for his own use, in similar fashion to what

the bishops had already done, following the benefactions of Constantine. However, control of

the cities ultimately meant control over the people. By the mid fourth century, the crowds

already held a strong, imposing presence. Writings from the period convey the image that

civic leaders feared the fickle crowds, easily changed by hardships, such as food shortages. In

354, the city of Antioch was suffering a famine and the starving citizens rioted, burning homes

and lynching the governor. Supposedly Julians half-brother Gallus, then Caesar of the East,

falsely blamed the governor for the food shortage and then handed him over to the crowds to

be torn apart. Julian knew about this incident, as he mentions it in his Misopogon, which

suggests that he understood the importance of the crowds. Control of the crowds meant

power in the cities, and therefore meant one could sway the crowds to serve their own

purposes.

If scenes like the one could instill trepidation in civic officials, it would explain how

Philanthropia could be used by either the Church or the State to mass a prodigious force

within the cities. Julians religious program appears to reflect a definite concern that the

Church would gain such control over the citizens. Many of his reforms reflect this idea, and

his competition for Philanthropia is just one example of how he sought to regain what

paganism had lost, or had been seized by impious Galileans. When he accused the Curiales

of being corrupt and greedy, it was not their avarice actions that were upsetting, but rather

that these elite members of society relinquished their philanthropic duties, and, viewing it as

unimportant, virtually handed over Philanthropia to the Church, giving bishops a definite

advantage in the power struggle that had already begun between the Church and State.

Julians reforms did not last long. When he died during his failed invasion of Persia,

Julians reforms died with him, having been rescinded by his Christian successor, Jovian. The

Church and its bishops would come out on top as the victors. By the end of the 4th century,

Ambrose, that famous bishop of Milan, could safely call the bishops controllers of the

crowds, intensifying the already tenuous power struggle between bishop and emperor,

Church and State. Hindsight would show that Julians efforts attempted to stall such results,

but were in vain. These reforms were but one episode in the ongoing soap opera between

Church and State, but showed how one emperor saw this conflict as a definite concern

regarding the welfare of the empire.