Julian EXTRACT FROM EPISTLE LI. TO THE ALEXANDRIANS.
"As the founder of your city was Alexander, and your ruler and tutelar deity King Serapis, together with the virgin his associate, and the queen of all Egypt, Isis, * * *, you do not emulate a healthy city, but the diseased part dares to arrogate to itself the name of [the whole] city. By the gods, Men of Alexandria, I should be very much ashamed, if, in short, any Alexandrian should acknowledge himself to be a Galil?an.
"The ancestors of the Hebrews were formerly slaves to the Egyptians. But now, Men of Alexandria, you, the conquerors of Egypt (for Egypt was conquered by your founder), sustain a voluntary servitude to the despisers of your national dogmas, in opposition to your ancient sacred institutions. And you do not recollect your former
[60]
felicity, when all Egypt had communion with the gods, and we enjoyed an abundance of good. But, tell me, what advantage has accrued to your city from those who now introduce among you a new religion? Your founder was that pious man Alexander of Macedon, who did not, by Jupiter! resemble any one of these, or any of the Hebrews, who far excelled them. Even Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, was also superior to them. As to Alexander, if he had encountered, he would have endangered even the Romans. What then did the Ptolemies, who succeeded your founder? Educating your city, like their own daughter, from her infancy, they did not bring her to maturity by the discourses of Jesus, nor did they construct the form of government, through which she is now happy, by the doctrine of the odious Galil?ans.
"Thirdly: After the Romans became its masters, taking it from the bad government of the Ptolemies, Augustus visited your city, and thus addressed the citizens: 'Men of Alexandria, I acquit your city of all blame, out of regard to the great god Serapis,
and also for the sake of the people, and the grandeur of the city. A third cause of my kindness to you is my friend Areus.' This Areus, the companion of Augustus Caesar, and a philosopher, was your fellow-citizen.
[61]
"The particular favours conferred on your city by the Olympic gods were, in short, such as these. Many more, not to be prolix, I omit. But those blessings which the apparent gods bestow in common every day, not on one family, nor on a single city, but on the whole world, why do you not acknowledge? Are you alone insensible of the splendour that flows from the sun? Are you alone ignorant that summer and winter are produced by him, and that all things are alone vivified and alone germinate from him? Do you not, also, perceive the great advantages that accrue to your city from the moon, from him and by him the fabricator of all things? Yet you dare not worship either of these deities; but this Jesus, whom neither you nor your fathers have seen, you think must necessarily be God the word, while him, whom from eternity every generation of mankind has seen, and sees and venerates, and by venerating lives happily, I mean the mighty sun, a living, animated, intellectual, and beneficent image of the intelligible Father, you despise. If, however, you listen to my admonitions, you will by degrees return to truth. You will not wander from the right path, if you will be guided by him, who to the twentieth year of his age pursued that road, but has now worshiped the gods for near twelve years."
[62]
EXTRACTS FROM THE FRAGMENT OF AN ORATION OR EPISTLE ON THE DUTIES OF A PRIEST.
"If any are detected behaving disorderly to their prince, they are immediately punished; but those who refuse to approach the gods, are possessed by a tribe of evil d?mons, who driving many of the atheists [i. e. of the Christians] to distraction, make them think death desirable, that they may fly up into heaven, after having forcibly dislodged their souls. Some of them prefer deserts to towns; but man, being by nature a gentle and social animal, they also are abandoned to evil d?mons, who urge them to this misanthropy; and many of them* have had recourse to chains and collars. Thus, on all sides, they are impelled by an evil d?mons, to whom they have voluntarily surrendered themselves, by forsaking the eternal and saviour gods.
"Statues and altars, and the preservation of the unextinguished fire, and in short all such particulars, have been established by our fathers, as symbols of the presence of the gods; not that we should believe that these symbols are gods, but that through these we should worship the gods. For since we are connected with body, it is also
     * i. e. The Cappadocian monks and hermits.
[63]
necessary that our worship of the gods should be performed in a corporeal manner; but they are incorporeal. And they, indeed, have exhibited to us as the first of statues, that which ranks as the second genus of gods from the first, and which circularly revolves round the whole of heaven*. Since, however, a corporeal worship cannot even be paid to these, because they are naturally unindigent, a third kind of statues was devised in the earth, by the worship of which we render the gods propitious to us. For as those who reverence the images of kings, who are not in want of any such reverence, at the same time attract to themselves their benevolence; thus, also, those who venerate the statues of the gods, who are not in want of any thing, persuade the gods by this veneration to assist and be favourable to them. For alacrity in the performance of things in our power is a document of true sanctity; and it is very evident that he who accomplishes the former, will in a greater degree possess the latter. But he who despises things in his power, and afterwards pretends to desire impossibilities, evidently does not pursue the
     * Meaning those divine bodies the celestial orbs, which in
     consequence of participating a divine life from the
     incorporeal powers from which they are suspended, may be
     very properly called secondary gods.
[64]
latter, but overlooks the former. For though divinity is not in want of any thing, it does not follow that on this account nothing is to be offered to him. For neither is he in want of celebration through the ministry of words. What then? Is it, therefore, reasonable that he should also be deprived of this? By no means. Neither, therefore, is he to be deprived of the honour which is paid him through works; which honour has been legally established, not for three or for three thousand years, but in all preceding ages, among all nations of the earth.
"But [the Galilaeans will say], O! you who have admitted into your soul every multitude of d?mons, whom, though according to you they are formless and unfigured, you have fashioned in a corporeal resemblance, it is not fit that honour should be paid to divinity through such works. How, then, do we not consider as wood and stones those statues which are fashioned by the hands of men? O more stupid than even stones themselves! Do you fancy that all men are to be drawn by the nose as you are drawn by execrable d?monss, so as to think that the artificial resemblances of the gods are the gods themselves? Looking, therefore, to the resemblances of the gods, we do not think them to be either stones or wood; for neither do we
[65]
think that the gods are these resemblances; since neither do we say that royal images are wood, or stone, or brass, nor that they are the kings therefore, but the images of kings. Whoever, therefore, loves his king, beholds with pleasure the image of his king; whoever loves his child is delighted with his image; and whoever loves his father surveys his image with delight. Hence, also, he who is a lover of divinity gladly surveys the statues and images of the gods; at the same time venerating and fearing with a holy dread the gods who invisibly behold him*. If, therefore, some
     * The Catholics have employed similar arguments in defence
     of the reverence which they pay to the images of the men
     whom they call saints. But the intelligent reader need not
     be told, that it is one thing to venerate the images of
     those divine powers which proceed from the great first Cause
     of all things, and eternally subsist concentrated and rooted
     in him, and another to reverence the images of men, who when
     living were the disgrace of human nature. In addition to
     what is said by Julian on this subject, the following
     extract from the treatise of Sallust, on the Gods, and the
     World, is well worthy the attentive perusal of the reader:
     "A divine nature is not indigent of any thing; but the
     honours which we pay to the gods are performed for the sake
     of our advantage. And since the providence of the gods is
     everywhere extended, a certain habitude or fitness is all
     that is requisite, in order to receive their beneficent
     communications. But all habitude is produced through
     imitation and similitude.    Hence temples imitate the
     heavens, but altars,...
[66]
one should fancy that these ought never to be corrupted, because they were once called the images of the gods, such a one appears to me to be perfectly void of intellect. For if this were admitted, it is also requisite that they should not be made by men. That, however, which is produced by a wise and good man may be corrupted by a depraved and ignorant man. But the gods which circularly revolve about the heavens, and which are living statues, fashioned by the gods themselves as resemblances of their unapparent essence,—these remain for ever. No one, therefore, should disbelieve in the gods, in consequence of seeing and hearing that some persons have behaved insolently towards statues and temples. For have there not been many who have destroyed good men, such as Socrates and Dion, and the great Empedotimus? And who, I well know, have, more than statues or temples, been taken care of by the gods. See, however, that the gods, knowing the body of these to
     ...the earth; statues resemble life, and on this account
     they are similar to animals. Prayers imitate that which is
     intellectual; but characters, superior ineffable powers.
     Herbs and stones resemble matter; and animals which are
     sacrificed, the irrational life of our souls. But, from all
     these, nothing happens to the gods beyond what they already
     possess; for what accession can be made to a divine nature?
     But a conjunction with our souls and the gods is by these
     means produced.
[67]
be corruptible, have granted that it should yield and be subservient to nature, but afterwards have punished those by whom it was destroyed; which clearly happened to be the case with all the sacrilegious of our time.
"Let no one, therefore, deceive us by words, nor disturb us with respect to providential interference. For as to the prophets of the Jews, who reproach us with things of this kind, what will they say of their own temple, which has been thrice destroyed, but has not been since, even to the present time, rebuilt? I do not, however, say this as reproaching them; for I have thought of rebuilding it, after so long a period, in honour of the divinity who is invoked in it. But I have mentioned this, being willing to show, that it is not possible for any thing human to be incorruptible; and that the prophets who wrote things of this kind were delirious, and the associates of stupid old women. Nothing, however, hinders, I think, but that God may be great, and yet he may not have worthy interpreters [of his will]. But this is because they have not delivered their soul to be purified by the liberal disciplines; nor their eyes, which are profoundly closed, to be opened; nor the darkness which oppresses them to be purged away. Hence, like men who survey a great light through thick darkness,
[68]
neither see purely nor genuinely, and in consequence of this do not conceive it to be a pure light, but a fire, and likewise perceiving nothing of all that surrounds it, they loudly exclaim, Be seized with horror, be afraid, fire, flame, death, a knife, a two-edged sword; expressing by many names the one noxious power of fire. Of these men, however, it is better peculiarly to observe how much inferior their teachers of the words of God are to our poets."
AN EDICT, FORBIDDING THE CHRISTIANS TO TEACH THE LIFE-RATURE OF THE HEATHENS.
"We are of opinion that proper erudition consists not in words, nor in elegant and magnificent language, but in the sane disposition of an intelligent soul, and in true opinions of good and evil, and of what is beautiful and base. Whoever, therefore, thinks one thing, and teaches another to his followers, appears to be no less destitute of erudition than he is of virtue. Even in trifles, if the mind and tongue be at variance, there is some kind of improbity. But in affairs of the greatest consequence, if a man thinks one thing, and teaches another contrary to what he thinks, in what respect does this differ from the conduct of those mean-spirited, dishonest, and abandoned traders, who generally affirm what they know to be false, in order to deceive and inveigle customers?
[69]
"All, therefore, who profess to teach, ought to possess worthy manners, and should never entertain opinions opposite to those of the public; but such especially, I think, ought to be those who instruct youth, and explain to them the works of the ancients, whether they are orators or grammarians; but particularly if they are sophists. For these last affect to be the teachers, not only of words, but of manners, and assert that political philosophy is their peculiar province. Whether, therefore, this be true or not, I shall not at present consider. I commend those who make such specious promises, and should commend them much more, if they did not falsify and contradict themselves, by thinking one thing, and teaching their scholars another. What then? Were not Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias, the leaders of all erudition? And did not some of them consider themselves sacred to Mercury, but others to the Muses? I think, therefore, it is absurd for those who explain their works to despise the gods whom they honoured.
"I do not mean (for I think it would be absurd) that they should change their opinions for the sake of instructing youth; but I give them their option, either not to teach what they do not approve, or, if they choose to teach, first to persuade their
[70]
scholars that neither Homer, nor Hesiod, nor any of those whom they expound and charge with impiety, madness, and error concerning the gods, are really such as they represent them to be. For as they receive a stipend, and are maintained by their works, if they can act with such duplicity for a few drachms, they confess themselves guilty of the most sordid avarice.
"Hitherto, indeed, many causes have prevented their resorting to the temples; and the dangers that everywhere impended, were a plea for concealing the most true opinions of the gods. But now, since the gods have granted us liberty, it seems to me absurd for any to teach those things to men which they do not approve. And if they think that those writers whom they expound, and of whom they sit as interpreters, are wise, let them first zealously imitate their piety towards the gods. But if they think they have erred in their conceptions of the most honourable natures [the gods], let them go into the churches of the Galil?ans, and there expound Matthew and Luke, by whom being persuaded you forbid sacrifices. I wish that your ears and your tongues were (as you express it) regenerated in those things of which I wish that myself, and all who in thought and deed are my friends, may always be partakers.
[71]
"To masters and teachers let this be a common law. But let no youths be prevented from resorting to whatever schools they please. It would be as unreasonable to exclude children, who know not yet what road to take, from the right path, as it would be to lead them by fear and with reluctance to the religious rites of their country. And though it would be just to cure such reluctance, like madness, even by force, yet let all be indulged with that disease. For I think it is requisite to instruct, and not to punish the ignorant."