Review
Reviewed Work(s): Julian Apostata by Richard Klein
Review by: G. W. Bowersock
Source: Numen, Vol. 28, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1981), pp. 88-93
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3269801
Accessed: 23-01-2019 23:23 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
BOOK REVIEWS
JULIAN APOSTATA, herausgegeben von Richard Klein, W
Forschung, Bd. 509 - Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft,1978, 531 p.
Like other volumes in the series Wege der Forschung, this one resurrec
many meritorious and sometimes inaccessible publications from p
scholarship. House policy dictates that all pieces must appear in German,
with the unfortunate result that scholars whose native language is Italia
French, or English must read the writings of their compatriots in tran
tion. There seems to be little point to this exercise in a volume designed f
international consumption. It begins to look more and more as if th
publishers of the series to which the present work belongs have not rea
thought through the fundamental principles of the enterprise. Scholars
and students who are able to appreciate arguments that make ample use
Greek, Latin, and (in this case) Hebrew sources in the original will c
tainly be equipped to read the major modern languages of the discipline.
has always seemed odd that the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft h
never recognized that it could provide a far more useful product if
located translators for papers written in less familiar languages and simpl
left those in English and the Romance languages in their original state.
is good to have Kent's important article on the Julianic coinage available
here, but it scarcely needed to be put into German. On the other hand,
immensely valuable contribution on Julian and the Jews by H.
Lewy-at this point in the history ofJulianic research far more worth h
ing than Adler's piece from 1893-has been omitted. Lewy's work i
available only in modern Hebrew (in his COlamot Nifgashim), and accord
ingly a German translation would have been highly desirable. Instead we
have Adler's excellent but ancient study laboriously turned into German
and printed with extensive quotations in Hebrew that is untranslat
This makes no sense at all.
Another weakness of the series which impairs the usefulness of the
volume on Julian is the absence of any annotation to indicate what may
have been disproved or superseded in the reprinted articles. Recent work
in several quarters has put it beyond doubt that Libanius' phrase (Orat.
24.6) about the person who hurled the fatal spear that ended Julian's life
has been correctly transmitted (Tai-prls rs). It is Greek for one of the
tayydye (as they were known in Syriac), the Arab nomads. Yet on page 45
Numen XXVIII, 1 (1981)
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book reviews 89
Adler's note stands as a trap fo
batim) kann zur Zeit nicht in Fra
da handschriftlich hinter TQwe
sind". It is irresponsible for an
ened. To turn to another illustr
chosen to include in his volume t
on the sources for Julian's Pers
advance when it appeared, but i
work, which has refined and impr
tion of Ammianus' use of a Gr
Oribasius. This possibility offers
of Zosimus' third book to the narrative of Ammianus. And if it was
Eunapius that Ammianus used, a fresh assumption is required about t
date of publication of the first edition of Eunapius' history. All of this ha
been discussed in detail in recent years by Frangois Paschoud and T. D
Barnes with their work culminating in Paschoud's splendid new Bude edi-
tion of Zosimus, and Barnes' study of the sources of the Historia August
(Collection Latomus, no. 155, published in 1978). I discussed the problems
to some extent myself in a contribution to the Lausanne colloquium
1976 on Gibbon et Rome. What is the point of translating Chalmers into
German to mislead those innocents who had never troubled to read him in
English and presumably know nothing of Paschoud and Barnes? Once
again this makes no sense.
In these days scholarly activity in the Julianic period is far too brisk to
accommodate a mausoleum that enshrines the already cold relics of the
past. Even the bibliography, which might have helped to show initiates the
more recent controversies and (one hopes) progress, is inadequate for the
purpose. It shows every sign of having been compiled by reference work,
presumably in L 'annie philologique, rather than by close familiarity with the
scholarly literature. Works that do not actually mention Julian or the
major sources in the title are largely omitted, and there is carelessness
besides. On page 519 one finds the following entry: "N. A. S. Levine:
The Caesares of Julian. A historical study, Diss. University New York
1968". There is, of course, a New York University; but it happens that
this dissertation was written at Columbia University. It is available only
through University Microfilms (Ann Arbor, Michigan). The entry in the
bibliography is therefore useless. Furthermore, there are no entries at all
for Lewy or Paschoud; and, if dissertations are to be included, we ought
certainly to have Javier Arce's Estudios sobre las fuentes literarias, epigraficasy
numismaticas para la historia del emperador Fl. C. Juliano (Granada, 1975).
The many controversies that have long attended discussions of the
career of Julian surface occasionally in the pieces assembled by Richard
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 Book reviews
Klein. In 1893 Adler began his i
with the observation that in all o
about whom there were such wid
is represented twice in this volum
about the love and hate, equally p
his own time to this. Latte noted
der Staub des Kampfes, den er
seiner Gestalt klar zu sehen". B
over the pages of this collection o
contemporary historical writi
something to call attention to th
contribution by Gerhard Wirt
volume, is there some hint of
biography The Emperor Julian
Darstellung, liisst aber eine Gr
einandersetzung mit Quellen u
was one of three to appear in
Auseinandersetzung. Guy Sabbah
489-49 1) on the explosion of int
valuable book of original essay
under the title L 'empereurJulien
bah describes Browning's work as
own as being more critical. This
to say that Julian was anythin
implies I say). Historians have t
was both a revolutionary and a r
It is impossible to say with certa
his ultimate aims really were.
analysis of the sources, and the K
help in the current debate. Inste
century romantic view of Julian
his introduction, speaks darkl
Ritselhafte der Erscheinung
Tragischen umgeben ist". Even
"Sein friiher Tod und das Scheite
eine Tragik". It seems difficult
tragedy that might have bef
prevailed-what the impact of his
what devastation would have been
fabric of late antique culture in
were intertwined.
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book reviews 91
One of the most fruitful devel
the increased attention given
Nisibis soon after the emperor
hymns to this theme and was
brought outside Nisibis on the w
at least as much claim as that of
him perfunctorily in his introdu
authors whose writings are repr
In fact, Gilliard's article on the
prior analysis of the famous bu
135-141. The fullest evidence
themselves, is not Socrates (3.
coins different from those that
porary, who wrote at length
(16-19). Gilliard had argued that
under the astrological sign of
unequivocally with Julian's attem
ones saw the image of the bull a
tion 17 Ephraem wrote, "The b
his heart, he struck in that ima
him (the Jews)". What is meant
altogether clear (the Apis bull, M
certainly is. Any interpretation
text. In section 18 Ephraem goes
bull: "The king of the Greeks
Ephraem's view of Julian's deat
end of Wirth's paper, which sug
the hopelessness of the Persian
going unarmed into battle:
vermuten, dies k6nne nur in vo
hymn of invective against Julia
his gods were blamed and put to
nor escape...he chose (gebd)
underworld" (section 16).
Another Syriac source which
upon Julianic studies figures no
introduction or bibliography. In
(1976), 103-107 Sebastian Brock a
with the complete text of a lett
Jerusalem on the geological dist
have the temple rebuilt. The Sy
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 Book reviews
of the School of Oriental and Afric
ment of exceptional
na interest,
cities devastated by an earthqu
with a prefatory statement: "Th
bishop of Jerusalem, concerning
temple and the earth shook and
sumed many of them and many
died". Although it is unlikely tha
there is reason to think it a p
therefore incorporate details
include a last-minute reference t
found space to alert his readers
Archaeology has also made its
Julian and his policies. There i
argued in Arch. Ephemeris (1973),
Parthenon discovered in 1970 and 1972 were evidence for a substantial
rehabilitation of the great temple in the time ofJulian. Travlos' hypothesis
has now been convincingly challenged by Alison Frantz in AJA 83 (1979),
395-401; but it is a pity to find no encounter with this issue in a new
volume from a series that calls itself Wege der Forschung.
In distributing the volume for review the publisher sent the following
notice: "Der Forschungsband sieht es als seine Aufgabe an, die
panegyrische Darstellung von Bidez etwas zurechtzuruicken durch eine
Auswahl von Arbeiten, die ebenso den Herrscher wie den Literaten einer
kritischen Priifung unterziehen". The lyrical prose in which Bidez wrote
his biography should not be allowed to obscure his mastery of the sources
and his remarkable success in presenting a cohesive portrait of the
emperor. Bidez's work is still indispensable. For a more critical assessment
of Julian it would have been better to commission new papers represen-
tative of controversies that are alive today (as Braun and Richter did in the
volume already cited). Wirth's article is the only new one in Klein's collec-
tion, and it is worth having. But it would have been interesting to have
heard also from Joachim Szidat, who is now in the process of completing
an important commentary on Ammianus' treatment of Julian (cf. part I
"Die Erhebung Julians", published as Historia Einzelschrift 31 in 1977),
not to mention Jacques Fontaine and Guy Sabbah (both distinguished for
their work on Ammianus). Fran;ois Paschoud and T. D. Barnes could
have supplied contrasting perspectives on the debate over sources,
especially Eunapius. Brock might have enlarged on his discussion of the
new letter attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem. Polymnia Athanassiadi-
Fowden, whose book on Julian is awaited from the Oxford University
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Book reviews 93
Press, might have been persuade
Julian (cf. Journal of Theological S
link with the hero-worship of J
Greece today. Roger Tomlin seems
Julian had a happy married life fo
was the only woman he ever k
testimony in Orat. 18. 179) he kne
tainly want to hear more about th
heart of the problem of Julian's p
been missed to achieve the very ai
on Julian.
Even in his survey of the story of
offers little in the way of stimulat
torily through some of the o
Vidal-as well as some less obvious ones, such as Felix Dahn, David
Friedrich Strauss, and L. de Wohl. But there is silence on the matter of
Julian's portentous impact upon Greeks of the mainland and the diaspora.
We hear nothing of Rhangavis or (a really grave omission) Cavafy.
In the end there is not much to be said for this volume of essays. It
seems to have been hastily compiled. Its usefulness will be limited to
scholars who already know their way around Julianic scholarship and will
find it convenient to have some important articles from the past in one
place. The book is bound to mislead and frustrate anyone else.
Institute for Advanced Study, G. W. BOWERSOCK
Princeton
YUYAMA, AKIRA, Systematische Ubersicht iiber die buddhistische Sanskrit-
Literatur. A Systematic Survey of Buddhist Sanskrit Literature. Im Auftrage
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in G6ttingen herausgegeben von
Heinz Bechert. Erster Teil: Vinaya-Texte von Akira Yuyama -
Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1978, 80 p. DM 20.
Der Verf., dem die buddhologische Fachwelt bereits umfangreiche Lite-
raturangaben zum Mahavastu-Avaddna (IIJ XI, S. 11 ff.) sowie eine Biblio-
graphie zu den Sanskrit-Texten des Saddharmapundarfkasutra (Canberra
1970) verdankt, liefert mit dieser neuesten Arbeit einen weiteren, iusserst
gewichtigen Beitrag zur Erfassung der buddhistischen Sanskrit-Literatur.
Das Buch registriert die kanonischen Vinaya-Texte des Hinayana-
Buddhismus, ihre Kommentare, Uebersetzungen, Bearbeitungen usw.
und inauguriert als Teil I eine Reihe weiterer Blinde der Systematischen Ue-
Numen XXVIII, 1 (1981)
This content downloaded from 129.78.56.230 on Wed, 23 Jan 2019 23:23:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
