# Letters of Julian/Letter 50

From The Works of the Emperor Julian, volume III (1913) Loeb Classical Library.

## 50. To Nilus, surnamed Dionysius

[362-363, Winter, from Antioch]
Your earlier silence was more creditable than your present defence; for then you did not utter abuse, though perhaps it was in your mind. But now, as though you were in travail, you have poured out your abuse of me wholesale. For must I not regard it as abuse and slander that you supposed me to be like your own friends, to each of whom you offered yourself uninvited; or rather, by the first you were not invited, and you obeyed the second on his merely indicating that he wished to enlist you to help him. However, whether I am like Constans and Magnentius the event itself, as they say, will prove. But as for you, from what you wrote it is very plain that, in the words of the comic poet,
   "You are praising yourself, lady, like Astydamas."
For when you write about your "fearlessness" and "great courage," and say "Would that you knew my real value and my true character!" and, in a word, all that sort of thing, — for shame! What an empty noise and display of words is this! Nay, by the Graces and Aphrodite, if you are so brave and noble, why were you "so careful to avoid incurring displeasure," if need be, "for the third time"? For when men fall under the displeasure of princes, the lightest consequence — and, as one might say, the most agreeable to a man of sense — is that they are at once relieved from the cares of business; and if they have to pay a small fine as well, their stumbling block is merely money; while the culmination of the prince's wrath, and the "fate beyond all remedy" as the saying is, is to lose their lives. Disregarding all these dangers, because, as you say, "you had come to know me in my private capacity for the man I am" — and in my common and generic capacity for the human being I am, though unknown to myself, late learner that I am! — why, in heaven's name, did you say that you were careful to avoid incurring displeasure for the third time? For surely my anger will not change you from a good man into a bad. I should be enviable indeed, and with justice, if I had the power to do that; for then, as Plato says, I could do the converse as well. But since virtue owns no master, you ought not to have taken into account anything of the 'sort. However, you think it is a fine thing to speak ill of all men, and to abuse all without exception, and to convert the shrine of peace into a workshop of war. Or do you think in this way to excuse yourself in the sight of all for your past sins, and that your courage now is a screen to hide your cowardice of old? You have heard the fable of Babrius: "Once upon a time a weasel fell in love with a handsome youth.". The rest of the fable you may learn from the book. However much you may say, you will never convince any human being that you were not what you were, and such as many knew you to be in the past. As for your ignorance and audacity now, it was not philosophy that implanted them in you, no, by heaven! On the contrary, it was what Plato calls a twofold lack of knowledge. For though you really know nothing, just as I know nothing, you think forsooth that you are the wisest of all men, not only of those who are alive now, but also of those who have ever been, and perhaps of those who ever will be. To such a pitch of ignorance has your self-conceit grown!
However, as far as you are concerned, this that I have said is more than enough; but perhaps I ought to apologise on your account to the others because I too hastily summoned you to take part in public affairs. I am not the first or the only one, Dionysius, who has had this experience. Your namesake deceived even great Plato; and Callippus the Athenian also deceived Dio. For Plato says that Dio knew he was a bad man but that he would never have expected in him such a degree of baseness. Why need I quote the experience of these men, when even Hippocrates, the most distinguished of the sons of Asclepius, said: "The sutures of the head baffled my judgement." Now if those famous men were deceived about persons whom they knew, and the physician was mistaken in a professional diagnosis, is it surprising that Julian was deceived when he heard that Nilus Dionysius had suddenly become brave? You have heard tell of the famous Phaedo of Elis, and you know his story. However, if you do not know it, study it more carefully, but at any rate I will tell you this part. He thought that there is nothing that cannot be cured by philosophy, and that by her all men can be purified from all their modes of life, their habits, desires, in a word from everything of the sort. If indeed she only availed those who are well born and well bred there would be nothing marvellous about philosophy; but if she can lead up to the light men so greatly depraved, then I consider her marvellous beyond anything. For these reasons my estimate of you, as all the gods know, inclined little 'by little to be more favourable; but even so I did not count your sort in the first or the second class of the most virtuous. Perhaps you yourself know this; but if you do not know it, enquire of the worthy Symmachus. For I am convinced that he would never willingly tell a lie, since he is naturally disposed to be truthful in all things. And if you are aggrieved that I did not honour you before all others, I for my part reproach myself for having ranked you even among the last in merit, and I thank all the gods and goddesses who hindered us from becoming associated in public affairs and from being intimate . . . And indeed, though the poets have often said of Rumour that she is a goddess, and let us grant, if you will, that she at least has demonic power, yet not very much attention ought to be paid to her, because a demon is not altogether pure or perfectly good, like the race of the gods, but has some share of the opposite quality. And even though it be not permissible to say this concerning the other demons, I know that when I say of Rumour that she reports many things falsely as well as many truthfully, I shall never myself be convicted of bearing false witness.
But as for your "freedom of speech," do you think that it is worth four obols, as the saying is? Do you not know that Thersites also spoke his mind freely among the Greeks, whereupon the most wise Odysseus beat him with his staff, while Agamemnon paid less heed to the drunken brawling of Thersites than a tortoise does to flies, as the proverb goes? For that matter it is no great achievement to criticise others, but rather to place oneself beyond the reach of criticism. Now if you can claim to be in this category, prove it to me. Did you not, when you were young, furnish to your elders fine themes for gossip about you? However, like Electra in Euripides, I keep silence about happenings of this sort. But when you came to man's estate and betook yourself to the camp, how, in the name of Zeus, did you behave? You say that you left it because you gave offence in the cause of truth. From what evidence can you prove this, as though many men and of the basest sort had not been exiled by the very persons by whom you yourself were driven away? O most wise Dionysius, it does not happen to a virtuous and temperate man to go away obnoxious to those in power! You would have done better if you had proved to us that men from their intercourse with you were better behaved. But this was not in your power, no, by the gods, nor is it in the power of tens of thousands who emulate your way of life. For when rocks grind against rocks and stones against stones they do not benefit one another, and the stronger easily wears down the weaker.
I am not saying this in Laconic fashion and concisely, am I? Nay, I think that on your account I have shown myself even more talkative than Attic grasshoppers. However, in return for your drunken abuse of myself, I will inflict on you the appropriate punishment, by the grace of the gods and our lady Adrasteia. What, then, is this punishment, and what has the greatest power to hurt your tongue and your mind? It is this: I will try, by erring as little as may be in word and deed, not to provide your slanderous tongue with so much foolish talk. And yet I am well aware that it is said that even the sandal of Aphrodite was satirised by Momus. But you observe that though Momus poured forth floods of criticism he could barely find anything to criticise in her sandal. Even so may you grow old fretting yourself over things of this sort, more decrepit than Tithonus, richer than Cinyras, more luxurious than Sardanapalus, so that in you may be fulfilled the proverb, "Old men are twice children."
But why does the divine Alexander seem to you so pre-eminent? Is it because you took to imitating him and aspired to that for which the youth Hermolaus reproached him? Or rather, no one is so foolish as to suspect you of that. But the very opposite, that which Hermolaus lamented that he had endured, and which was the reason for his plotting, as they say, to kill Alexander — everyone believes this about you also, do they not? I call the gods to witness that I have heard many persons assert that they were very fond of you and who made many excuses for this offence of yours, but I have found just one person who did not believe it. However he is that one swallow who does not make a spring. But perhaps the reason why Alexander seemed in your eyes a great man was that he cruelly murdered Callisthenes, that Cleitus fell a victim to his drunken fury, and Philotas too, and Parmenio and Parmenio's son; for that affair of Hector, who was smothered in the whirlpools of the Nile in Egypt or the Euphrates — the story is told of both rivers — I say nothing about, or of his other follies, lest I should seem to speak ill of a man who by no means maintained the ideal of rectitude but nevertheless excelled as a general in the works of war. Whereas you are less endowed with both these, namely, good principles and courage, than a fish with hair. Now listen to my advice and do not resent it too much.
   "Not to thee, my child, have been given the works of war."
The verse that follows I do not write out for you, because, by the gods, I am ashamed to do so. However I ask you to understand it as said. For it is only fair that words should follow on deeds, and that he who has never avoided deeds should not avoid the phrases that describe them.
Nay, if you revere the pious memory of Magnentius and Constans, why do you wage war against the living and abuse those who excel in any way? Is it because the dead are better able than the living to avenge themselves on those who vex them? Yet it does not become you to say this. For you are, as your letter says, "Very brave indeed." But if this is not the reason, perhaps there is a different one. Perhaps you do not wish to satirise them because they cannot feel it. But among the living is there anyone so foolish or so cowardly as to demand that you should take any notice of him at all, and who will not prefer if possible to be altogether ignored by you; but if that should be impossible, to be abused by you, as indeed I am now abused rather than honoured? May I never be so ill-advised — may I never aspire to win praise rather than blame from you!
But perhaps you will say that the very fact that I am writing to you is a proof that I am stung? No, I call the Saviour Gods to witness that I am but trying to check your excessive audacity and boldness, the license of your tongue and the ferocity of your soul, the madness of your wits and your perverse fury on all occasions. In any case it was in my power, if I had been stung, to chastise you with deeds and not merely with words, and I should have been entirely within the law. For you are a citizen and of senatorial rank and you disobeyed a command of your Emperor; and such behaviour was certainly not permissible to anyone who could not furnish the excuse of real necessity. Therefore I was not satisfied with inflicting on you any sort of penalty for this conduct, but I thought I ought to write to you first, thinking that you might be cured by a short letter. But since I have discovered that you persist in the same errors, or rather how great your frenzy is which I previously did not know . . . lest you should be thought to be a man, when that you are not, or brimful of freedom of speech, when you are only full of insanity, or that you have had the advantage of education when you have not the smallest acquaintance with literature, as far, at any rate, as one may reasonably judge from your letters. For instance, no one of the ancients ever used φροῦδος to mean "manifest" as you do here, — for, as for the other blunders displayed in your letter, no one could describe them even in a long book, or that obscene and abominable character of yours that leads you to prostitute yourself. You tell me indeed that it is not those who arrive offhand or those who are hunting for public office whom we ought to choose, but those who use sound judgement and in accordance with this prefer to do their duty rather than those who are ready and eager to obey. Fair, truly, are the hopes you hold out to me though I made no appeal to you, implying that you will yield if I again summon you to take part in public business. But I am so far from doing that, that, when the others were admitted, I never even addressed you at any time. And yet I did address many who were known and unknown to me and dwell in Rome, beloved of the gods. Such was my desire for your friendship, so worthy of consideration did I think you! Therefore it is likely that my future conduct towards you will be much the same. And indeed I have written this letter now, not for your perusal alone, since I knew it was needed by many besides yourself, and I will give it to all, since all, I am convinced, will be glad to receive it. For when men see you more haughty and more insolent than befits your past life, they resent it.
You have here a complete answer from me, so that you can desire nothing more. Nor do I ask for any further communication from you. But when you have read my letters use them for whatever purpose you please. For our friendship is at an end. Farewell, and divide your time between luxurious living and abuse of me!

## Footnotes

* ↑ For the name and personality of Nilus see Introduction, under Nilus.
* ↑ Constans; cf. Vol. 1, Oration 1. 9d.
* ↑ Magnentius; cf. Oration 1 for the defeat of this usurper by Constantias. Magnentius had murdered Constans, see Oration 1. 26b, 2. 55 d.
* ↑ Cf. Vol. 2, Caesars 307a.
* ↑ Philemon frag. 190; cf. Letter to Basil, p. 83; this had become a proverb.
* ↑ i.e. after his experiences with Constans and Magnentius.
* ↑ A quotation from the other's letter.
* ↑ Crito 44d.
* ↑ Plato, Republic 617e.
* ↑ The Senate; for the phrase ἐργαστήριον πολέμου cf. Xenophon, Hellenica 3. 4. 17.
* ↑ Fable 32, the weasel or cat, transformed into a woman, could not resist chasing a mouse.
* ↑ Cf. Proclus on Cratylus 65 for this Neo-Platonic phrase; and Plato, Apology 21d. In Sophist 229b Plato defines the ignorance of those who do not even know that they are ignorant, as τῶν κακῶν αἰτια, καὶ ἡ ἐπονείδιστος ἀμαθία.
* ↑ The tyrant of Syracuse.
* ↑ Callippus, who assassinated Dio in 353 B.C., was himself put to death by the Syracusans after he had usurped the government.
* ↑ Plato, Epistle 7. 351 d, e.
* ↑ Hippocrates, 5. 3. 561 Kuhn. This candid statement of Hippocrates, who had failed to find a wound in a patient's head, was often cited as a proof of a great mind; cf. Plutarch, De profectu in virtute, 82d.
* ↑ For the reformation of Phaedo by philosophy, see Aulus Gellius 2. 18 and Julian, Vol. 2, 264d (Wright). He was a disciple of Socrates and wrote several dialogues; for his Life see Diogenes Laertius, 2. 105; cf. Wilamowitz in Hermes 14.
* ↑ i.e. as Phaedo. Wilamowitz thinks that this sentence and the preceding are quoted or paraphrased from Phaedo.
* ↑ This was probably L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus the Roman senator, prefect of the city in 364-5, father of the orator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus; Ammianus 21. 12. 24, describes the meeting of the elder Symmachus and Julian in 361 at Nish.
* ↑ The lack of connection indicates a lacuna though there is none in the MSS. Probably Julian said that their intimacy existed only as a rumour.
* ↑ Hesiod, Works and Days 763.φήμη δ᾽ οὔτισ πάμπαν ἀπόλλυται, ἤν τινα πολλοὶ λαοὶ φημίωσι᾽ θεός νύ τίς ἐστι καὶ αὐτή.
* ↑ Cf. Julian's reverence for φήμη in Vol. 1, pp. 409, 423; Vol. 2, p. 347, Wright.
* ↑ Iliad 2. 265.
* ↑ Orestes 16; τὰς γὰρ ἐν μέσῳ σιγῶ τύχας. Cf. Vol. 2, To Themistius, 254b, p. 204, Wright.
* ↑ i.e. of Constans.
* ↑ We do not know to whom Julian refers.
* ↑ See the similar passage on p. 101. Asmus thinks that the Laurieius there mentioned and Nilus were both Cynics and therefore obnoxious to Julian.
* ↑ A reference to the letter of Nilus, who had perhaps asked for a brief answer.
* ↑ Cf. Misopogon 370b, vol. 2, p. 508, Wright.
* ↑ Or "burst with the effort," cf. rumpi invidia.
* ↑ Philostratus, Epistle 37; Momus complained that Aphrodite wore a sandal that squeaked.
* ↑ For the plot of Hermolaus and Callisthenes against Alexander, cf. Quintus Curtius 8. 6; Arrian, Anabasis 4. 13. 14; Plutarch, Alexander 55.
* ↑ The historian who accompanied Alexander to the East.
* ↑ Cf. Vol. 2, Caesars 331c, p. 403, note, Wright.
* ↑ The general Parmenio and his son Philotas were executed for treason; Arrian, Anabasis 3. 26.
* ↑ Cf. Quintus Curtius 5. 8. 7; Hector, a son of Parmenio, was, according to Curtius, accidentally drowned, though Julian ascribes his death to Alexander.
* ↑ Iliad 5. 428, Zeus to Aphrodite.
* ↑ ἀλλὰ σύ γ᾽ ἱμερόεντα μετέρχεο ἔργα γαμοῖο.
* ↑ Julian seems to anticipate the criticism of Nilus that he is not showing himself superior to Alexander.
* ↑ For Julian's mildness in such cases, see Ammianus. 25. 4. 9. Constat eum in apertos aliquos inimico insidiatores suos ita consurrexisse mitissime, ut poenarum asperitatem genuina lenitudine castigaret.
* ↑ Lacuna. Some reference to the letters written by Nilus is needed here.
* ↑ In Attic the word means "vanished."