Observations on the Burial of the Emperor Julian in Constantinople

EXTRAIT BYzANTtoN Rn ug lnTsnxrlloMrE or5 2008 hu oa1 Byzarllrcl - Tbme LXXVII Publi€ avec l'aide ftnancibre de Ia Fondati,on Universitaire de Belgique et du Fonds National de Ia Recherche Scientifique OBSERVATIONS ON THE BURIAL OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN IN CONSTANTINOPLE In a recent article David Woods argued that the remains of the emperor Julian (I 26'n or 27'h of June 363) were never transferred from their original tomb in Tarsus and that the sarcophagus in the Apostoleion complex in Constantinople identified in Byzantine sources as that of the apostate emperor actually belonged to Crispus (317-326), the first son of Constantine the Great ('). While Woods raises important questions concerning the accepted belief in the reburial of Julian in the complex, there remain valid reasons as to why the emperor may indeed have been buried there, notwithstanding his repudiation of Christianity. Woods points out that the alleged transfer of the remains of Julian is not mentioned in any of the earlier fourth, fifth and sixth century sources, but only in later Byzantine sources of the tenth and eleventh centuries ('). He argues that such an important event would have been noted by the earlier writers if it had indeed taken place. An examination of the full record of imperial burials, however, shows it to have a rather large number of lacunae. The location of the tomb of Constantine's father, Constantius Chlorus, who was beloved by his troops and certainly received an honorable funeral and burial, is not given in any source (,). Nor is the location of burial of any number of emperors such as Philip (244-249), Claudius II (268-270), Gratian (361-383), Valentinian II (375-392), Anthemius (467-472) and Olybrius (472), to name but a few. The transfer of imperial remains did not seem to attract attention on other occasions. The remains of Vespasian (69-79) and Titus (7981) were apparently moved from the Mausoleum of Augustus to the (l) D. Wooos, On the Alleged Reburial of Julian the Apostate in Constantinople , in Byz. , 7 6 (2006), pp. 364-37 I . (2) Wooos, p. 366. (3) M. JouNsoN, Where were Constantius I and Helena Buried ?,in I'atomus, 5I (1992), pp. 141-150. THE BURIAL OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN IN CONSTANTINOPLE 255 Templum Gentis Flaviae by Domitian (81-96), but no contemporary author, in a period when the historians often left detailed information about current events, bothered to mention the transfer and its circumstances ('). In the end, the fact that certain events are not mentioned in contemporary sources does not necessarily mean that the event did not take place. In this particular case, the later Byzantine authors were either dependent on taking note of the presence of the sarcophagus of Julian in Constantinople or perhaps on an earlier written source now lost. In arguing his case Professor Woods makes the interesting suggestion that the tomb thought by the later writers to belong to Julian actually belonged to Flavius Julius Crispus, with the later writers, unfamiliar with Latin, mistakenly interpreting the inscription of the tomb as referring to Julian (t). He suggests that it was Constantine, who after ordering the death of his first son, later decided to move his remains to Constantinople where they were interred in a small mausoleum that came to be known as the "North Stoa". This is, of course, speculation, and it raises a number of questions. Was the memory of Crispus truly rehabilitated to the point of Constantine ordering to have him buried in the complex Constantine was planning ? Why bring the remains of Crispus to Constantinople when other members of the family were buried elsewhere ? E.g. his mother Helena was buried in Rome and later his daughters Helena, the wife of Julian, and Constantina were buried in Rome, while his son Constans was probably buried in the mausoleum at Centcelles in Spain (u).Why is this transfer and burial not mentioned by any of the early authors, all of who revel in the scandal of Crispus' death ? Were there, in fact, inscriptions on or near the sarcophagi to be read in the tenth century ? Or was the identity of the various occupants of the imperial sarcophagi kept as an oral tradition or written list, passed on from keeper to keeper ? No inscription remains, the surviving sarcophagi do not have inscriptions, and no literary source quotes any inscription, all of which suggest that the burials were identified in some other way ('). (4) Penelope J. E. Devres, Death and the Emperor Roman Imperial Funerary M onuments from Augustus to Marc us Aure lius, Cambridg e, 2000, p. 24. (5) Woops, pp. 367-371. (6) M. JoHNsoN, The Porphyry Alveus of Santes Creus and the Mausoleum at Centcelles, in Madrider Mitteilungen,49 (2008), pp. 389-395,Taf .27. (7) For an excellent study of the surviving sarcophagi and all literary sources related to them see Neslihan Asurav-EppeNssRcpn and A. EppexsnRceR, Die Porphyrsarkophage der ostrdmishen Kaisen Versuch einer Bestandserfassung, 256 M. J. JOHNSON The primary reason to doubt that Julian's remains may have been transferred to the church in Constantinople is on the face of it, a compelling one. As David Woods states ; "... it is unthinkable that the bishop or people of Constantinople should ever have allowed a man such as Julian to be reburied in this church, whether in a structure within or attached to the main body of the church itself or in some quite separate structure within the wider church grounds" ('). One can well imagine that the transfer of Julian's remains to Constantinople would have indeed been met with opposition on the part of bishop, clergy and populace. In truth, however, the opinion of these people on the matter may not have mattered in the least. The real issue here is not whether they would have agreed to the reburial of the Apostate in the Apostoleion complex, but lies in determining who had the right to decide where any emperor could be buried or reburied. It is also important to understand the laws that governed such burials. The sources do give some indication as to who was ultimately responsible for selecting the location of imperial burials. An earthquake struck Constantinople in 358, damaging the Apostoleion in which lay the remains of Constantine. The bishop of Constantinople, Macedonius, ordered that the sarcophagus containing the imperial remains be moved to the church of St. Akakios 6v t(r 'Ento,oxd,trr+l ('). During the transfer a riot broke out, apparently because a group of citizens thought the removal to be a violation of the sanctity of the imperial burial and a dishonor to the memory of Constantine, and a number of people were killed in the fighting. When Constantius II (337-361), son of Constantine and then emperor, learned of the transfer and ensuing riot, he was incensed. As Sokrates reports, the emperor was angered "both on account of the slaughter which he had occasioned, and because he (Bishop Macedonius) had dared to move his father's body without consulting him" ('o). In other - - Byzanz. Zeitbestimmung und Zuordnung (Spritantike Friihes Christentum l5), WiesPerspektiven, und Reihe B, Studien Kunst im ersten Jahrtausend, baden,2006. (8) Woops, p. 365. (9) On this church, see R. JRNTN, Les iglises et les monastDres (I'a G6ographie Eccl4siastique de l'Empire Byzantin, premibre partie, Le Siige de Constantinople et le Patriarcat (Ecumdnique,lII), Paris, 1969', pp. 14-15. (10) Sornxres, Historia Ecclesiastica II, 38, 35-44 (ed. G. C. HaNseN); repeated in Sozovenos, Flistoria EcclesiasticaIY,2I (ed. J. Broez) ; THnopuaNes THE BURIAL OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN IN CONSTANTINOPLE 257 words, the bishop did not have the authority to transfer the sarcophagus and remains of Constantine, no matter the circumstances. Only the ruling emperor could make that decision, and it follows that only the emperor could, therefore, decide who could, or could not be buried at the church. The right held by emperors to determine the location of imperial burials is also very clear in a later fourth-century event. When Valentinian II (375-392) died at Vienne, the result of suicide or murder, his remains were sent to Milan. Although it is likely that he was eventually buried in the imperial mausoleum now known as Sant'Aquilino attached to the flank of San Lorenzo at Milan, Bishop Ambrose did not seek an immediate burial but waited for two months until a reply was received to the letter he sent to the emperor Theodosius I asking for instructions ("). Acknowledging the receipt of Theodosius' instructions, Ambrose responded to the emperor with another letter stating, "let us now attend to his burial which your clemency has commanded to take place here" ('2). It is clear then that the choice of determining where an imperial burial took place belonged to the ruling emperor and not church officials, at least in the fourth century. It might still be asked if the bishops and clergy still may have had some role in this regard and whether or not church regulations would have precluded the burial of an apostate such as Julian within the limits of the Apostoleion complex. There is no indication in any source from late antiquity that the Church exerted control over burials or determined what constituted a "Christian" burial. It is wrong to think that the imperial burials that took place at the Apostoleion in the fourth century were in any way governed by church regulations because, simply stated, there was no overall church policy governing burials at that time. As I have argued elsewhere, there was no legal impediment under Roman or canon law that would have prohibited pagans and Christians sharing the same tomb during the fourth centu- CoNrssson, Chronographia, A.M. 5852 (ed. C. ue Boon); Geoncros KroRnNos, Synopsis historion,I, p. 530 (ed. I. Bexrnn) ; JouN ZoNeRes XIII, I 1,25-27 (III, p. 58, ed. M. PrNoen) NxneHonos Kellrsros XeNrHopoulos, Historia EcclesiasticalX, 42 (PG 146,392-393) ; EpHneev AeNrus, Historia Chronica,ll. 9632-9639 (- History of the Patriarchs of New Rome), p. 386 (ed. I. Bercn); Synopsis Chronica, p. 55, 16-24 (ed. K. SarHes). See also Asuray-EFFENBERcER and EnTeNBERGER, pp. 57-58. ; (11) For the probable location of Gratian's burial, see M. JouNsoN, On the Burial Places of the Valentinian Dynasty, in Historia, 40 (1991), pp. 501-506. (12) AunRostus, Epistulae 25,4 (= Maur. 53,4), p. 178 (ed. O. Fer-len). 258 M. J. JOHNSON ry ('r). Not before the sixth century is there any indication that the church was on its way to establishing firm regulations concerning the burial of its members. During the fourth century, then Roman law governed burials. Tombs were considered sacred by the law and due to their religious nature, responsibility for them came under the jurisdiction of the pontiffs, who exerted control in this matter until as late as the end of the fourth century ('o). Under Roman law there were two types of tombs, family and hereditary, the former for a man and his household, including servants, the latter for a man and his heirs, whether or not they were family members (rs). The founder of the tomb had the exclusive right to determine who would be allowed burial in the tomb ; an heir could not be excluded on the basis of belief unless the founder had so dictated. In this context the comments of Sokrates and Prokopios of Caesarea regarding the Apostoleion become significant. Sokrates, writing in the fifth century' implies that the Apostoleion was built as the burial place of Constantine and all his successors ('6), while a century later Prokopios claimed that the church was built by Constantius who decreed "that tombs for himself and for all future Emperors should be placed there, and not for the rulers alone, but for their consorts as well" ('?). What Sokrates and Prokopios are describing is a hereditary tomb, built by Constantine for himself and (13) See M. JonNsoN, Pagan-Christian Burial Practices of the Fourth Century : Shared Tombs ?, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 5 (1997)' pp. 3759. (14) On the role of the pontiffs in burial matters see Mary Belno, Priesthood in the Roman Republic, in Mary Bneno and J. NonrH (eds.), Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, London, 1989, pp. 19-48, especially pp. 37-38; for their role in the fourth century, see A. BoucHE-LecLnRcQ, Les pontifes de l'ancienne Rome, Paris, 1871, pp. 146-158. (15) Disestae lI, 7, 5; tr. C. H. MoNno, The Digest of Justinian,II, Cambridge, 1909, p.254; see also M. Kasnn, Zum rdmischen Grabrecht, in Zeitscnift der Savigny-Stiftun7 fur Rechtsgeschichte : Rdmische Abteilung, 59 (1978), pp. 15-92, especially pp. 37-60. (16) SoxnAres, Historia EcclesiasticaI,40,l-2 (ed. G. C. HnNsnN). (17) Pnorortos, De aedificiis I, 4, 19; cf' H. B. Dewnc and G' DowNnv, Procopius, VII, Buildings (The Loeb Classical Library), London - Cambridge, Mass., l97l (- 1940), pp. 52-53; the same claim is made by Nrromos MnsRnrrns, Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople,39, 2 (ed. and tr. G. Dowxnv). THE BURIAL OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN IN CONSTANTINOPLE 259 his heirs with he and his heirs being the only persons legally empowered to determine who might share the tomb. There was no legal impediment to the transfer of the remains of Julian to the Apostoleion. As the heir to Constantine and Constantius, he had the right under Roman law to burial in the imperial mausoleum. He did, of course, choose to be buried in a mausoleum he had constructed outside of Tarsus and it would have been one of his successors that chose to transfer his remains ('8). Whoever that may have been, nevertheless, appears to have shown some sensitivity in determining where within the complex the sarcophagus containing his remains was placed. The building history of theApostoleion is complicated and much debated, but I believe the following scenario comes closest to the truth ('e). During the later years of his reign, Constantine the Great constructed a circular building that was both a church and a mausoleum. His son Constantius II modified the building, adding a cruciform structure that became the church, while the circular building retained its function of imperial mausoleum. At some point a building described only as the "North Stoa" was added to the complex, though it is unclear whether this was a freestanding structure or attached to the church in some fashion. Although the date of the transfer of the remains of Julian is not given in the sources, I believe that it probably took place sometime in the later part of the fourth century and that the "North Stoa" may have been built expressly to receive Julian's sarcophagus. The burial would then have taken place within the larger complex of the Apostoleion but not in the church proper or in the mausoleum (18) For Julian's original tomb and the transfer see M. ur MRlo, The Transfer of the Remains of the Emperor Julian from Tarsus to Constantinople, in Byz.,48 (1978), pp. 43-50, who argues for a transfer date of after 500 ; J. Ancn, La tumba del Emperador Juliano, in Lucentum, 3 (1984), pp. 181-191 ; Asurev-EnrnNBERGER and ErreNBERcER, pp. 59-60, who also argue for a later transfer date. I find the argument that since neither Philostorgios (ca. 425-433) and Zosimos (ca. 500) mention the transfer, it must have taken place after their books were published, to be unconvincing. The text of Philostorgios is incomplete and Zosimos, a pagan, may well have had no interest in discussing Julian's burial in the Apostoleion. (19) For full arguments and documentation see M. JouNsoN, The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity, Cambridge and New York, forthcoming. For now see G. DecRoN, Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 d 451 (BibtiothDque byzantine, Etudes, 7), Paris, lg84', pp. 401409. 260 M. J. JOHNSON that was directly connected with it. The only other burial recorded in the "North Stoa" was that of Jovian (363-364), Julian's successor ('o). This linkage suggests that the burials occurred within a common time frame, perhaps during the reign of Jovian's successor, Valens (36a-378). In the final analysis, David Woods is correct to raise concerns about the blind acceptance of later Byzantine sources as regards the burial of Julian in Constantinople. Nevertheless, no valid reason exists as to why such a transfer and reburial could not have taken place. The nature of the sources, both the early ones from the fourth to sixth centuries and the later ones, is such that all of them are as notable for what they are missing as much as for the information they do contain. Most importantly, the laws that governed burials in the fourth century would have permitted Julian's burial within the Apostoleion complex. Although one cannot state with certitude that Julian's remains were in fact transferred to the capital, it is equally true that the possibility of such a transfer taking place remains intact. Mark J. JouNsoN. [email protected] righam Youn g Univ e rs ity Provo, Utah. B Suuunnv This article argues that the alleged transfer of the remains of Julian to the church of the Hoty Apostles in Constantinople may well have taken place. The fact that contemporary sources do not mention the transfer is not extraordinary. Furthermore, no legal reasons for excluding his reburial in the Apostoleion complex existed in the fourth century when burials were still under the jurisdiction of Roman, not ecclesiastical, law. in the complex that it stood elsewhere speculation much leading to Jovian's sarcophagus stood, before being moved to the North Stoa where it is placed by the tenth-century sources. See Asurev-EnreNeBncen and ERreNeBncER, pp. 60-61. The sources allow that it always stood in the North Stoa. (20) The contemporary sources are not clear on where