It is no surprise that the political and philosophical discourses about Roman power shifted in the fourth century in the wake of Constantine’s adoption of Christianity. What is surprising, however, after reading Lea Niccolai’s stimulating book, is that the agents articulating this discourse were not just the philosophers, rhetoricians, and bishops at the court of Constantine. Be emperors themselves performed political exegesis as a means to “legitimize change (or anchor innovation)” (p. 25). Niccolai points out that the performance of exegesis by Constantine and Julian hearkens back to the earlier empire, when emperors like Marcus Aurelius articulated their political roles based on knowledge of philosophical leadership. This development is noteworthy, and it strikes me as very much at odds with the practices of the third-century barracks emperors. Niccolai’s study is especially important for it offers another reason why we see in the fourth-century an explosion of texts, by, to, and for emperors.
Constantine and his family, most notably Julian, chose to build on philosophical ideals of leadership and a truer view of history to anchor their power. Moreover, these historical agents and their supporters – Eusebius, Themistius, and Libanius to name a few – used a host of narratives, including miracle stories, biography, or historical accounts, to demonstrate not just their own superior exegetical skills, but to prove that they had divine support for their exegesis of texts.
The texts examined in each of Niccolai’s six chapters range the course of the fourth century – from Constantine and his Oration to the Saints (in the Introduction and Chapter 3) – down through Eunapius’ Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists. (Chapter 6) . Each chapter strives to show how the author advances a “channel of communication between the divine and human and resolves, accordingly the tension between the meaning of the past…. of history… and the present” (p. 26). So, for example, Niccolai convincingly demonstrates that Constantine’s claims to correct exegesis of texts in his Oration to the Saints are not simply intended to show this ruler as an intelligent reader of literature, but one who can provide an alternative source of evidence for the presence of Christ in this world (p. 27). For Constantine and Christians, his exegesis of classical texts supports the Bible and Christ’s reality; in contrast, the exegesis by pagans like Julian and Libanius provides evidence of the philosophical and/or pagan truth in the texts.
The driving personality and principal authorial exegete throughout this study is Julian. Niccolai provides keen insights into Julian’s Panegyric to Constantius II (Chapter 2), praising him, as was necessary given the genre, yet establishing at the same time his own credentials as an independent and skilled philosophical exegete of key Platonic texts in support of imperial rule. Even after his demise, Julian’s words influenced supporters and detractors.
This is an excellent study, insightful, and provocative. Still, not all will agree with Niccolai’s reading of the texts. So, for example, I am not so confident that Ammianus’s rendering of Julian’s quotation from Homer was based on Julian’s behavior rather than Ammianus’s imagination. The author could have done more to assist the reader by providing more definitions of terms. For example, a fuller discussion of what was meant by philosopher at the court of Constantine or Constantius would have been helpful, as would notions of Neoplatonism. More could have been done with Constantius II in this book; his Oration to the Senate is noted (p. 82–83), but little discussed. What more can we say about his own performance as an exegete? Admittedly, Niccolai’s discussion of Constantius’s supporter, Themistius, in Chapter 2 can add to our understanding of this emperor, but not based on own words. Rather, Niccolai rightly asserts that Themistius is articulating what would have been the approved position on this emperor’s political philosophy at the court of Constantius II.
Finally, more discussion of some of the broader implications of this study would have been helpful. Much more could have been said about the irony that Niccolai (p. 35) points to, namely that “Neoplatonic objections to the Christian rhetoric of universalism ironically ended up facilitating the displacement of non-Christian philosophers from the political scene.” Can we see that play out in the world?
Despite these quibbles, those interested in untangling the competing philosophical and Christian views at the court of Constantine and his successors will gain greatly from Niccolai’s book. Reading this book also contributes to our understanding of why fourth-century Roman emperors and their supporters saw it as their role to be articulate proponents of political and religious interpretations of texts. This, in turn, helps to explain why emperors were so involved in contemporary theological disputes. The political importance of exegesis also underscores the growing influence of bishops in society, and how bishops gained the support of the state to propound their own versions of episcopal authority and imperial power. Because of the political importance of this dynamic, Niccolai’s sophisticated analysis should spur further study of these questions and these texts by classicists, historians, and patristic scholars alike.
