by Robert Hamilton
Julian’s New Paganism
The focus of this essay, will be on, comparing Julian’s new paganism with the polytheistic religious practices of pre-Constantinian Rome, and also, on some of the problematic issues that pagan’s had with Julian’s particular religious approach. The evidence from ancient sources like Ammianus, Libanius, and Julian himself, suggests that Julian did craft a new approach to pagan religious practices in light of the Christianisation of Rome under Constantine and Constantius. The Christian ancient sources, like Gregory Nazianzenus and John Chrysostom, also shed light on Julian’s religious approaches, albeit from a more condemnatory position, as they considered him an apostate.
The world that Julian was raised in was a Byzantine Christian one, and as Constantine’s grandson, and as the cousin of Constantius, he was raised as a Christian in this rapidly changing eastern empire. The evidence suggests that Julian, as a young man, secretly rejected the ‘Galilean’s religion’, as he called it, in favour of a Hellenistic polytheism. Julian aspired to be a philosopher and through his Hellenistic education was attracted to the neo-Platonic, theurgist approach to life and religion. This means that Julian was not a natural pagan by birth, but rather a neo-pagan by choice and in reaction to the newly established Christian religion. He saw the Christian religion as something for the common and poorly educated people, and not for the apogee of both royalty and intellect, himself. This issue of elitism within the Roman empire, the huge gap between ruling class and the masses, in terms of wealth and education may have been a defining reason behind the rise in the popularity of Christianity. Julian as an intellectual, philosopher king, did not immediately perceive the reality of the day, as exampled by his experience in Antioch in 361 AD, on his way to Persia. Here in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, Julian’s removal of the remains of a Christian saint, St Babylas, from a Christian church near the temple of Apollo, caused a great furore, and when the temple was later burnt to the ground suspicion fell upon the Christians; but an investigation found it to be an accident. The Christians, it seems, had seized the common ground and Julian’s take on paganism was a decidedly superior and serious matter, and perhaps not an empowering philosophy for the ordinary citizen.
When Julian became undisputed emperor, upon Constantius’ death in 361 AD, he began to reintroduce paganism as the state sanctioned religion, but with new improvements. These improvements can be seen to borrow from the successes of Christianity, in particular, the public behaviour of their priests and bishops. Julian saw how the Christian clergy were widely respected by their followers and how they generally behaved well, avoiding any licentious acts in public. So, Julian then sought to appoint pagan high priests to each city in the empire, and to instruct them on how to behave. There had always been pontiffs, and pagan priests, but their public performance had never been prescribed according to any moral code. In fact Maximinus Daia, the emperor in the east in 313, had instigated a similar structure, placing high priests in every city, which was seen by Eusebius as part of the persecution of Christians throughout the empire; his view, is of course, biased toward the recorded persecution of Christians, as a foundation stone of the Christian religion. There was resistance to these changes, instigated by Julian, from aristocratic Roman families, who had traditionally seen these pagan priestly roles as their birthright. Julian did not want his pagan high priests to have any secular power, only spiritual, this also offended the traditional view of these positions, which was that they were public roles delivering status and influence.
Continued in Roman and Greek History by Robert Hamilton
 Chrysostum, John. “Homily on St. Babylos” in The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic , Lieu, Samuel N. C. , 1989 , X1V-76. “Henceforth Julian mounted the throne without assuming the diadem, for such was the limit of the authority of his dead brother. Sorcerer and blackguard that he was he had at first pretended to profess the Christian faith, out of regard for him who had given him his power. But as soon as his benefactor died Julian cast aside his mask and all its trappings and thereafter barefacedly flaunted for the world to see all those impious superstitions which he had previously concealed.”
 Cameron. Averil, The Mediterranean World In Late Antiquity, (second ed), Routledge, 2012, P – 15.
“Julian’s short reign as sole emperor (he died from a spear wound in mysterious circumstances when on campaign against Persia) is one of the most controversial, partly because of his own considerable and self-conscious literary output. Brought up a Christian, at first under the care of Eusebius the bishop of Constantinople, he was later allowed contact with leading philosophers at Ephesus and Athens, and adopted an enthusiastic form of pagan Neoplatonism. Among his writings are a hymn to King Helios and a treatise against Christianity (Against the Galilaeans) and as emperor he attempted ban Christians from teaching and to organize paganism along the institutional lines adopted by the Christian church.”
 Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans Introduction By Wilmer Cave Wright, 1923 p-.313. “Julian, like Epictetus, always calls the Christians Galilaeans because he wishes to emphasise that this was a local creed, “the creed of fishermen,” and perhaps to remind his readers that “out of Galilee ariseth no prophet”;with the same intention he calls Christ “the Nazarene.” His chief aim in the treatise was to show that there is no evidence in the Old Testament for the idea of Christianity, so that the Christians have no right to regard their teaching as a development of Judaism. His attitude throughout is that of a philosopher who rejects the claims of one small sect to have set up a universal religion.”
 Gregory Nazianzenus, " Julian the Emperor", 1888. Oration 5: Second Invective Against Julian. 23. (trans - Roger Pearse), Ipswich, UK, 2003.
“This character of his was made known by experience to others, and by his coming to the throne which gave him free scope to display it. But it had previously been detected by some; ever since I lived with this person at Athens; for he too had gone thither, immediately after the catastrophe of his brother, having himself solicited this permission from the emperor. There was a double reason for this journey: the one more specious—-the object of acquainting himself with Greece and the schools of that country; the other more secret, and communicated to but a few—-that he might consult the sacrificers and cheats there upon the matters concerning himself; so far back did his paganism extend.”
 Brauch, Thomas. “Themistius and the emperor Julian” Byzantion: Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines , 63: , 1993 , P – 81. “Julian’s earliest known acquaintance with Themistius took place while the future emperor was a youthful student in Asia Minor. Julian later reports in his Letter to Themistius (357d) that he received instruction on Plato’s Laws from Themistius at some time during his formal education, probably at Constantinople in 348 or 349 AD.”
 Brauch, Thomas. “Themistius and the emperor Julian” Byzantion: Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines , 63: , 1993 , P – 82. “At any rate, soon after Julian’s elevation Themistius praised Constantius for choosing a fellow philosopher as his partner, in compliance with the Platonic principle of the union of kingship and philosophy (Or. 2.40a-b)”
 Emperor Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian –Misopogon or Beard Hater, Vol 11, Introduction by Wilmer Cave Wright), Loeb Library, London.. “JULIAN came to Antioch on his way to Persia in the autumn of 361 and stayed there till March, 362.
The city was rich and important commercially, but in Julian's eyes her glory depended on two things, the famous shrine of Apollo and the school of rhetoric ; and both of these had been neglected by the citizens during the reign of Constantius. A Christian church had been built in Apollo's grove in the suburb of Daphne, and Libanius, Antioch's most distinguished rhetorician, was more highly honoured at Nicomedia. 1 Julian's behaviour at Antioch and his failure to ingratiate himself with the citizens illustrates one of the causes of the failure of his Pagan restoration. His mistake was that he did not attempt to make Paganism popular, whereas
Christianity had always been democratic. He is always reminding the common people that the true knowledge of the gods is reserved for philosophers ; and even the old conservative Pagans did not share his zeal for philosophy. Antioch moreover was a frivolous city.”
 Rohrbacher, David. “Ammianus Marcellinus” in Historians of Late Antiquity , Rohrbacher, David , 2002 , P -21. “ In book 22, Julian, now sole ruler of the empire, continues east to Constantinople and Antioch, distributing patronage and establishing his position. He withdraws state support from Christianity and flaunts his paganism.”
 Emperor Julian, Letter to Arsacius, trans- Edward. D. Chinnock, A Few Notes on Julian and a Translation of His Public Letters, David Nutt, London, 1901, P- 75-78. “Priests ought to make a point of not doing impure or shameful deeds or saying words or hearing talk of this type. We must therefore get rid of all offensive jokes and licentious associations. What I mean is this: no priest is to read Archilochus or Hipponax or anyone else who writes poetry as they do. They should stay away from the same kind of stuff in Old Comedy. Philosophy alone is appropriate for us priests.”
 Eusebius, Church History, (trans- J.E.L Oulton), ix 4. 2-3. Nicholson, O., ‘The ‘pagan churches’ of Maximinus Daia and Julian the Apostate’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45 (1994): 1-10. “Maximin himself appointed as priests of images of each city, and moreover, as high priests, those who were especially distinguished in the public services and had made their mark in the entire course therof. These persons brought great zeal to bear on the worship of the gods whom they served. Certainly, the outlandish superstition of the ruler was inducing, in a word, all under him, both governors and governed, to do everything against us in order to secure his favour; in return for the benefits which they thought to secure from him, they bestowed upon him the greatest of boons, namely, to thirst for our blood and to display some more novel tokens of malice towards us.”
 Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, (trans. R. Warner) Penguin Books, London, Revised Edition 2005. P-260.7 “It was at this time too that Metellus, the chief pontiff, died. This priesthood was very much sought after and two of the most distinguished men in Rome with the greatest influence in the senate, Isauricus and Catulus, were candidates for the office.”
 Emperor Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian – Letter to Themistius, (trans – Wilmer Cave Wright), Loeb Library, London. “These opinions, it seems to me, harmonise perfectly with Plato’s ; first, that he who governs ought to be superior to his subjects and surpass them not only in his acquired habits but also in natural endowment ; a thing which is not easy to find among men ; “
 Bradbury, Scott., ‘Julian’s pagan revival and the decline of blood sacrifice’, Phoenix 49 (1995): p -332. “Although keenly interested in sacrifices in his youth, Porphyry’s years with Plotinus (262-268) brought about a profound reorientation of his spiritual life and led him to call into doubt the utility of conventional cult, including blood sacrifice. In the Letter to Anebo, composed between 263 and 268, he rejected in a dismissive, even mocking, tone the elements of “low-brow” religion, the daemonology, occult practices, and sacrifices that had been so conspicuous in his early works, the Philosophy from Oracles and On the Return of the Soul.”
 Bradbury, Scott., ‘Julian’s pagan revival and the decline of blood sacrifice’, Phoenix 49 (1995): p -340. “Julian himself was clearly conversant with the philosophical debate over sacrifice. He was acquainted with the long dispute over the appropriateness of vegetarianism and its implications for sacrificial customs (Or. 9.191c). He was aware of the Pythagorean objection that sacrifice caused the animals pain and torment (Or. 8.174a). Furthermore, he rejected the argument that Diogenes was impious, in that he hailed to frequent the temples and to worship at statues and altars. Diogenes, claims Julian, possessed none of the usual sacrifices, incense, or libations, or the money to buy them. He offered the gods the most precious of possessions, the dedication of his soul through contemplation (Or. 9.199b).”
 Campbell Joseph, Myths to Live By, Bantam Books, New York, 1972. P – 95-96.
“I remember a vivid talk by the Japanese Zen philosopher Dr. Daisetz T. Suzuki, which opened with an unforgettable contrast of the Occidental and Oriental understandings of the God-man-nature-mystery. Commenting first on the Biblical view of the state of man following the Fall in Eden, “Man,” he observed, “is against God, Nature is against God, and Man and Nature are against each other. God’s own likeness (Man), God’s own creation (Nature) and God himself – all three are at war.” Then, expounding the Oriental view, “Nature,” he said, “is the bosom whence we come and whither we go.” “Nature produces Man out of itself; Man cannot be outside of Nature.” “I am in Nature and Nature is in me.”
 Scullard. H.H, From The Gracchi To Nero, (5th ed) Routledge, London & New York, 1982. P -357-358.
“The various schools of philosophy continued to make their appeal to an intellectual aristocracy and to win fresh followers in each generation. The Epicureans attempted to simplify life by removing fear of death. The Stoics were increasingly concerned with social ethics and with finding the way to virtue by living according to nature: as external circumstances which cannot be controlled become harder, so the controllable internal opinions, impulses and desires must be disciplined. The Cynics preached the attainment of independence by the renunciation of worldly goods and obligations: some became itinerant beggars who preached anarchy and denounced all rulers. Meantime other men turned to the more mystical approach of Neopythagoreanism and hoped in a common cult to purify the soul by prayer and discipline and to free it, in part even in this life, from the burden of the body. Philosophy was now less concerned with creative thought and metaphysical enquiry than with providing a way of life and a shield against the oppressions of the world around.”
 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus , (trans – George Long), Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. Publishers, New York, III-12. “If thou workest at that which is before thee, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract thee, but keeping thy divine part pure, as if thou shouldest be bound to give it back immediately; if thou holdest to this, expecting nothing, fearing nothing, but satisfied with thy present activity according to nature, and with heroic truth in every word and sound which thou utterest, thou wilt live happy. And there is no man who is able to prevent this.”
 Emperor Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian – Letters to the Uneducated Cynics, (trans – Wilmer Cave Wright), Loeb Library, London. 6.2.24. “For “Know Thyself” he addressed not only to Diogenes, but to other men also and still does : for it stands there engraved in front of his shrine. And so we have at last discovered the founder of this philosophy, even as the divine lamblichus also declares, yes, and we have discovered its leading men as well, namely Antisthenes and Diogenes and Crates ; 3 the aim and end of whose lives was, I think, to know themselves, to despise vain opinions, and to lay hold of truth with their whole understanding; for truth, alike for gods and men, is the beginning of every good thing ; 4 and it was, I think, for her sake that Plato and Pythagoras and Socrates and the Peripatetic philosophers and Zeno spared no pains, because they wished to know themselves, and not to follow vain opinions but to track down truth among all things that are.“
 Meredith, Anthony. “Porphyry and Julian against the Christians” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung (Series II) , Temporini, Hildegard , 1980 , 1137. “This action of Plotinus can be seen as the active counterpart to the total absence of political philosophy in Plotinus, Porphyry or Iamblichus. Under their influence, Platonic philosophy, which under both Plato and later Platonists like Celsus had had a definitely political bias, became apolitical, rigorously spiritualist and individualist. The Pythagorean tradition, likewise, as represented in the ’De Vita Pythagorica’, by Iamblichus, taught that Pythagoras left Samos for Italy, because he had not enough leisure in his native country adequately to pursue philosophy.”
Plotinus, The Ennead, (ed by Porphyry), Book 5.1 “The One is all things and no one of them; the source of all things is not all things; all things are its possession running back, so to speak, to it- or, more correctly, not so yet, they will be. But a universe from an unbroken unity, in which there appears no diversity, not even duality?”
 Meredith, Anthony. “Porphyry and Julian against the Christians” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung (Series II) , Temporini, Hildegard , 1980 , 1131. “There is clearly here present in the argument the notion that anything of value in Christianity is not really part of it, but owes its existence to either Jews or Greeks. A precisely similar objection was to be brought against Christianity by Julian less than a century later, and therewith was raised in an acute form the whole problem of the right of Christians to use the language, literature and philosophy of the Greeks.”
 Zosimus, New History, Green & Chaplin, London, 1814, Book 3. “After having remained ten months in Byzantium, he appointed Hormisdas and Victor to the command of his armies, and proceeded to Antioch. It is unnecessary to relate with what pleasure and enthusiasm the soldiers performed this journey: for it is not probable that they would be guilty of any improprieties under such an emperor as Julian. Upon his arrival at Antioch he was joyfully received by the people. But being naturally great lovers of spectacles and public amusements, and more accustomed to pleasure than to serious affairs, they were not pleased with the emperor’s general prudence and modesty. He indeed avoided entering the public theatres, and would seldom see plays, and when he did, would not sit at them the whole day: on which account they spoke disrespectfully of him, and offended him. He revenged himself on them, not by any real punishment, but by composing a very spirited oration ; which contains so much satire and keenness, that it will serve as a perpetual lampoon on the Antiochians. “
 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, (trans – Yonge. C.D), G. Bell & Sons, London, 1911. Book 22.7.6 “He offered repeated victims on the altars of the gods; sometimes sacrificing one hundred bulls, and countless flocks of animals of all kinds, and white birds, which he sought for everywhere by land and sea; so that every day individual soldiers who had stuffed themselves like boors with too much meat, or who were senseless from the eagerness with which they had drunk, were placed on the shoulders of passers-by, and carried to their homes through the streets from the public temples where they had indulged in feasts which deserved punishment rather than indulgence.”
 Bradbury, Scott. “Julian’s pagan revival and the decline of blood sacrifice” Phoenix , 49:1 , 1995 , P- 331-356 “Historians have long pointed out that Christian emperors had permitted other elements of pagan festivals to continue while forbidding blood on the altars, since blood sacrifice was the element of pagan cult most repugnant to Christians. Thus, blood sacrifice, although linked to the fate of pagan cults in general, poses special problems precisely because it was regarded as the most loathsome aspect of cult and aroused the greatest amount of Christian hostility.”
 Bradbury, Scott. “Julian’s pagan revival and the decline of blood sacrifice” Phoenix , 49:1 , 1995 , P- 340. “Nor did Julian invariably approve of lavish public cult. On the march eastward in 363, he saw sacrificial victims and billows of incense everywhere about Batnae, a scene that should have delighted him, but the Neoplatonist desire for withdrawal and seclusion asserted itself. He confesses to Libanius that it all seemed like overheated zeal and alien to a spirit of true piety. Worship of the gods, he claims, should take place in quiet seclusion away from busy public spaces Ep. 98.400c-d;cf. Misop. 344d). It is possible, in fact, to imagine Julian promoting a pagan revival without blood sacrifice. We should not underestimate his capacity for innovation.”
 Emperor Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian – Letters to the Uneducated Cynics, (trans – Wilmer Cave Wright), Loeb Library, London. 6.2.13. “For it is in knowledge that the gods surpass ourselves. And it may well be that with them also what ranks as noblest is self-knowledge. In proportion then as they are nobler than we in their essential nature, that self-knowledge of theirs is a knowledge of higher things. Therefore, I say, let no one divide philosophy into many kinds or cut it up into many parts, or rather let no one make it out to be plural instead of one. For even as truth is one, so too philosophy is one.”
 Libanius. “The lament over Julius” in Selected Works of Libanius: The Julianic Orations , Norman, A. F. , 1969 , p -252-275. “But which of the gods – which, I ask you, can be blamed for this? Have they all alike abandoned the guard that they should have stood around his noble person in return for the many sacrifices, the many prayers, the countless offerings of incense and the blood of sacrifice that flowed both day and night? He did not feast some and ignore others, as that Aetolian of old did with Artemis in the gathering of his crop, but to all the gods whom the poets have handed down to us, fathers, sons, male and female, governors and governed, he made libation and loaded the altars of every one with sheep and oxen.”
 Julian the Apostate, Letters, (trans – by W. C. Wright), Works vol. 3, 1923, pp.2-235.8. Letter To Maximus “Above all, it is right that you should learn how I became all at once conscious of the very presence of the gods, and in what manner I escaped the multitude of those who plotted against me, though I put no man to death, deprived no man of his property, and only imprisoned those whom I caught red-handed. All this, however, I ought perhaps to tell you rather than write it, but I think you will be very glad to be informed of it. I worship the gods openly, and the whole mass of the troops who are returning with me worship the gods.2 I sacrifice oxen in public. I have offered to the gods many hecatombs as thank-offerings. The gods command me to restore their worship in its utmost purity, and I obey them, yes, and with a good will. For they promise me great rewards for my labours, if only I am not remiss.”
 Chrysostum, John. “Homily on St. Babylos” in The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic , Lieu, Samuel N. C. , 1989 , X1V-103. “For one would have thought that Julian reigned for this purpose only, namely to get rid of all the animals of the world, so lavish was the massacre of sheep and cattle on the altars of the temple! Indeed he carried it to such frenzy that a great many of those among them who still appeared to be philosophers came up with crude nicknames for him, such as “cook” and “butcher” and so on.”
 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, (trans – Yonge. C.D), G. Bell & Sons, London, 1911. Book 22.§ 1. “While the variable events of fortune were bringing to pass these events in different parts of the world, Julian, amid the many plans which he was revolving while in Illyricum, was continually consulting the entrails of victims and watching the flight of birds in his eagerness to know the result of what was about to happen.”
 Cameron. Averil, The Mediterranean World In Late Antiquity, (second ed), Routledge, 2012, P – 12 “Traditionally, and certainly in English-speaking scholarship since Jones’ Later Roman Empire, the ‘later Roman empire’ has been thought of as beginning with the reign of Diocletian (284-305). A strong division was made between the mid-third century, seen as a time of civil strife, usurpation and financial crisis manifested in debasement of the coinage and spiralling prices, or even the virtual collapse of the monetary economy, and the era which followed, when policies associated with Diocletian led to greater bureaucratization, attempts to control prices by law, an attempted power-sharing between two Augusti and two Caesars, collectively known as the ‘tetrarchs’, and a new division of the provinces and separation of civil and military rule, together with a much increased pomp and ceremony surrounding the imperial court (an Oriental despotism).”
 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, (trans – Yonge. C.D), G. Bell & Sons, London, 1911. Book 22.4.5. “Among which vices, debauchery and unrestrained gluttony grew to a head, and costly banquets superseded triumphs for victories. The common use of silken robes prevailed, the textile arts were encouraged, and above all was the anxious care about the kitchen. Vast spaces were sought out for ostentatious houses, so vast that if the consul Cincinnatus had possessed as much land, he would have lost the glory of poverty after his dictatorship.”
 Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, (trans – Yonge. C.D), G. Bell & Sons, London, 1911. Book 22.5.3-4 “And in order to give more effect to his intentions, he ordered the priests of the different Christian sects, with the adherents of each sect, to be admitted into the palace, and in a constitutional spirit expressed his wish that their dissensions being appeased, each without any hindrance might fearlessly follow the religion he preferred.
4. He did this the more resolutely because, as long licence increased their dissensions, he thought he should never have to fear the unanimity of the common people, having found by experience that no wild beasts are
so hostile to men as Christian sects in general are to one another.”
 Socrates, historia ecclesiastica (Church History) III, 11-20, trans. A.C. Zenos in NPNF (= The Writings of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, ed. P. Schaff et all., New York, 1887-1892 and Oxford, 1890-1900, 2nd Ser. II, 1891: 84-90.
“He was also aware that the pagans were extremely discontented because of the prohibitions which prevented their sacrificing to their gods, and were very anxious to get their temples opened, with liberty to exercise their idolatrous rites. In fact, he was sensible that while both these classes secretly entertained rancorous feelings against his predecessor, the people in general were exceedingly exasperated by the violence of the eunuchs, and especially by the rapacity of Eusebius the chief officer of the imperial bed-chamber. Under these circumstances he treated all parties with subtlety: with some he dissimulated; others he attached to himself by conferring obligations upon them, for he was fond of affecting beneficence; but to all in common he manifested his own predilection for the idolatry of the heathens.”
 Adler, Michael, The Emperor Julian and the Jews, Jewish Quarterly Review 5, 1893, P – 595.“Whether Julian merely favoured Judaism because he was fond of all institutions and customs of antiquity, as some critics assert, or because it was the parent and determined foe of the Christianity he abhorred, or because he approved of the religion as a genuine, pure faith, is a question that each writer must conclude for himself from the evidence before him.”
Adler, Michael, The Emperor Julian and the Jews, Jewish Quarterly Review 5, 1893.
Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, (trans – Yonge. C.D), G. Bell & Sons, London, 1911.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus , (trans – George Long), Thomas Y. Crowell & Co. Publishers, New York, 1904.
Bradbury, Scott., ‘Julian’s pagan revival and the decline of blood sacrifice’, Phoenix 49 ,1995.
Brauch, Thomas. “Themistius and the emperor Julian” Byzantion: Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines , 63.
Browning, R., The Emperor Julian, London, 1975.
Cameron. Averil, The Mediterranean World In Late Antiquity, (second ed), Routledge, 2012.
Campbell Joseph, Myths to Live By, Bantam Books, New York, 1972.
Chrysostum, John. “Homily on St. Babylos” in The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic , Lieu, Samuel N. C. , 1989.
Eusebius, Church History, (trans- J.E.L Oulton), ix 4. 2-3. Nicholson, O., ‘The ‘pagan churches’ of Maximinus Daia and Julian the Apostate’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45, 1994.
Emperor Julian, Letter to Arsacius, trans- Edward. D. Chinnock, A Few Notes on Julian and a Translation of His Public Letters, David Nutt, London, 1901.
Emperor Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian – Letters to the Uneducated Cynics, (trans – Wilmer Cave Wright), Loeb Library, London.
Julian the Apostate, Letters, (trans – by W. C. Wright), Works vol. 3, 1923.
Emperor Julian, Two Orations of the Emperor Julian: One to the Sovereign Sun and the other to the Mother of the Gods, (trans – Taylor Thomas), 1758-1835.
Libanius. “The lament over Julius” in Selected Works of Libanius: The Julianic Orations , Norman, A. F. , 1969.
Meredith, Anthony. “Porphyry and Julian against the Christians” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der Neueren Forschung (Series II) , Temporini, Hildegard , 1980.
Murdoch Adrian, The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the End of the Roman World, Rott Publishing, UK, 2003.
Plotinus, The Enneads, (ed – Porphyry), 3rd century AD. Kindle Ebook, 2013.
Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, (trans. R. Warner) Penguin Books, London, Revised Edition 2005.
Gregory Nazianzenus, ” Julian the Emperor” (1888). Oration 5: Second Invective Against Julian. 23. (trans – Roger Pearse), Ipswich, UK, 2003.
Rohrbacher, David. “Ammianus Marcellinus” in Historians of Late Antiquity , Rohrbacher, David , 2002.
Scullard. H.H, From The Gracchi To Nero, (5th ed) Routledge, London & New York, 1982.
Socrates, historia ecclesiastica (Church History) III, 11-20, trans. A.C. Zenos in NPNF (= The Writings of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church, ed. P. Schaff et all., New York, 1887-1892 and Oxford, 1890-1900, 2nd Ser. II, 1891.
Zosimus, New History, Green & Chaplin, London, 1814.