(But it is indeed a noble witness that I shall now bring forward, that splendid orator Pericles, the renowned, the Olympian. It is said[604] that once a crowd of flatterers surrounded him and were distributing his praises among them, one telling how he had reduced Samos,[605] another how he had recovered Euboea,[606] some how he had sailed round the Peloponnesus, while others spoke of his enactments, or of his rivalry with Cimon, who was reputed to be a most excellent citizen and a distinguished general. But Pericles gave no sign either of annoyance or exultation, and there was but one thing in all his political career for which he claimed to deserve praise, that, though he had governed the Athenian people for so long, he had been responsible for no man's death, and no citizen when he put on black clothes had ever said that Pericles was the cause of his misfortune. Now, by Zeus the god of friendship, do you think I need any further witness to testify that the greatest proof of virtue and one better worth praise than all the rest put together is not to have caused the death of any citizen, or to have taken his money from him, or involved him in unjust exile? But he who like a good physician tries to ward off such calamities as these, and by no means thinks that it is enough for him not to cause anyone to contract a disease, but unless he cures and cares for everyone as far as he can, considers that his work is unworthy of his skill, do you think that in justice such a one ought to receive no higher praise than Pericles? And shall we not hold in higher honour her character and that authority which enables her to do what she will, since what she wills is the good of all? For this I make the sum and substance of my whole encomium, though I do not lack other narratives such as are commonly held to be marvellous and splendid.)
Εἰ γὰρ δή τις τὴν περὶ τῶν ἄλλων σιωπὴν ὑποπτεύσειεν ὡς ματαίαν οὖσαν προσποίησιν καὶ ἀλαζονείαν κενὴν καὶ αὐθάδη, οὔτι που καὶ τὴν ἔναγχος ἐπιδημίαν γενομένην αὐτῇ τὴν εις τὴν [pg 344] Ῥώμην, [C] ὁπότε ἐστρατεύετο βασιλεὺς ζεύγμασι καὶ ναυσὶ τὸν Ῥῆνον διαβὰς ἄγχου τῶν Γαλατίας ὁρίων, ψευδῆ καὶ πεπλασμένην ἄλλως ὑποπτεύσει. ἐξῆν δὴ οὖν, ὡς εἰκός, διηγουμένῳ ταῦτα τοῦ δήμου μεμνῆσθαι καὶ τῆς γερουσίας, ὅπως αὐτὴν ὑπεδέχετο σὺν χαρμονῇ, προθύμως ὑπαντῶντες καὶ δεξιούμενοι καθάπερ νόμος βασιλίδα, καὶ τῶν ἀναλωμάτων τὸ μέγεθος, ὡς ἐλευθέριον καὶ μεγαλοπρεπές, καὶ τῆς παρασκευῆς τὴν πολυτέλειαν, ὁπόσα τε ἔνειμε τῶν φυλῶν [D] τοῖς ἐπιστάταις καὶ ἑκατοντάρχαις τοῦ πλήθους ἀπαριθμήσασθαι. ἀλλ᾽ ἔμοιγε τῶν τοιούτων οὔτε ἔδοξέ ποτε ζηλωτὸν οὐδέν, οὔτε ἐπαινεῖν ἐθέλω πρὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς τὸν πλοῦτον. καίτοι με[607] οὐ λέληθεν ἡ τῶν χρημάτων ἐλευθέριος δαπάνη μετέχουσά τινος ἀρετῆς· ἀλλ᾽ οἶμαι κρεῖττον ἐπιείκειαν καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ φρόνησιν καὶ ὅσα δὴ ἄλλα περὶ αὐτῆς λέγων πολλοὺς μὲν καὶ ἄλλους, [130] ἀτὰρ δὴ καὶ ἐμαυτὸν ὑμῖν καὶ τὰ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοὶ πραχθέντα παρεῖχον μάρτυρα. εἰ δὴ οὖν καὶ ἄλλοι τὴν ἐμὴν εὐγνωμοσύνην ζηλοῦν ἐπιχειρήσειαν, πολλοὺς ἔχει τε ἤδη καὶ ἕξει τοὺς ἐπαινέτας.
(For if anyone should suspect that my silence about the rest is vain affectation and empty and insolent pretension, this at least he will not suspect, that the visit which she lately made to Rome,[608] when the Emperor was on his campaign and had crossed the Rhine by bridges of boats near the frontiers of Galatia, is a false and vain invention. I could indeed very properly have given an account of this visit, and described how the people and the senate welcomed her with rejoicings and went to meet her with enthusiasm, and received her as is their custom to receive an Empress, and told the amount of the expenditure, how generous and splendid it was, and the costliness of the preparations, and reckoned up the sums she distributed to the presidents of the tribes and the centurions of the people. But nothing of that sort has ever seemed to me worth while, nor do I wish to praise wealth before virtue. And yet I am aware that the generous spending of money implies a sort of virtue. Nevertheless I rate more highly goodness and temperance and wisdom and all those other qualities of hers that I have described, bringing before you as witnesses not only many others but myself as well and all that she did for me. Now if only others also try to emulate my proper feeling, there are and there will be many to sing her praises.)
Oration IV
Introduction To Oration IV
In the fourth century a.d. poetry was practically extinct, and hymns to the gods were almost always written in prose. Julian's Fourth Oration is, according to the definition of the rhetorician Menander, a φυσικὸς ὕμνος, a hymn that describes the physical qualities of a god. Julian was an uncritical disciple of the later Neo-Platonic school, and apparently reproduces without any important modification the doctrines of its chief representative, the Syrian Iamblichus, with whom begins the decadence of Neo-Platonism as a philosophy. Oriental superstition took the place of the severe spiritualism of Plotinus and his followers, and a philosophy that had been from the first markedly religious, is now expounded by theurgists and the devotees of strange Oriental cults. It is Mithras the Persian sun-god, rather than Apollo, whom Julian identifies with his “intellectual god” Helios, and Apollo plays a minor part among his manifestations. Mithras worship, which Tertullian called “a Satanic plagiarism of Christianity,” because in certain of its rites it recalled the sacraments of the Christian church, first made its appearance among the Romans in the first century b.c.[609] Less [pg 349] hospitably received at first than the cults of Isis and Serapis and the Great Mother of Pessinus, it gradually overpowered them and finally dominated the whole Roman Empire, though it was never welcomed by the Hellenes. For the Romans it supplied the ideals of purity, devotion and self-control which the other cults had lacked. The worshippers of Mithras were taught to contend against the powers of evil, submitted themselves to a severe moral discipline, and their reward after death was to become as pure as the gods to whom they ascend. “If Christianity,” says Renan, “had been checked in its growth by some deadly disease, the world would have become Mithraic.” Julian, like the Emperor Commodus in the second century, had no doubt been initiated into the Mysteries of Mithras, and the severe discipline of the cult was profoundly attractive to one who had been estranged by early associations from the very similar teaching of the Christians.