Christianity, Philosophy, and Roman Power: Constantine, Julian, and the Bishops on Exegesis and Empire by Lea Niccolai (review)

Reviewed by: Christianity, Philosophy, and Roman Power: Constantine, Julian, and the Bishops on Exegesis and Empire by Lea Niccolai Jeremy Swist Lea Niccolai Christianity, Philosophy, and Roman Power: Constantine, Julian, and the Bishops on Exegesis and Empire Greek Culture in the Roman World Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023 Pp. xix + 359. 130. 00. Knowledge is power—or there were times, at least, when it was. One such time is the setting for Lea Niccolai's magisterial monograph, which illuminates the close, consistent connections between intellectual capital, imperial legitimacy, and religious validity that unite the history of political discourse and propaganda in the fourth-century Roman Empire. Niccolai's core idea is that late Roman emperors, namely Constantine, Constantius II, and Julian buttressed their political authority among imperial elites by projecting (and having projected onto them by associated intellectuals) an image of philosophical mastery—especially in their capacity to interpret not only classical and sacred texts, but also history and their own providentially chosen place within it. Following Julian, philosophers and bishops continued to compete for influence by articulating their own claims to genuine, divine knowledge. In supporting this thesis, Niccolai marshals a rich array of ancient evidence, recent scholarship, and her own analyses to demonstrate that these emperors were keenly aware of the necessity to cultivate reputations for intellectual superiority, which they showcased through their own authorship of End Page 305 texts, manipulation of visual iconography, and association with both Christian and pagan philosophers such as Eusebius and Themistius, who further propagated those reputations. The mutual need to strengthen their respective political positions created a symbiosis of rulers and philosophers/bishops as intellectual authority figures, both deploying various rhetorical media to justify their definitions of true philosophy and correct interpretive method. Competition over who claims access to divine truth played a major role, Niccolai argues, in the Christianization of the empire, especially among its elites. What begins with the propaganda of the emperor as philosopher-ruler as authenticated by court philosophers (i. e. , Constantine and Eusebius, Constantius II and Themistius) evolves toward a discourse of philosophers'/bishops' privileged access to divine knowledge, which they leverage in their relationship to the emperors they advise. While artistic and numismatic evidence comes into play where it can, Niccolai's analyses focus primarily on literature, namely the writings of Constantine, Eusebius, Themistius, Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Synesius, and Eunapius. The centerpiece, and organizing principle of this diverse material, is Julian, whose intense activity as emperor and author first adapted and responded to Constantinian models of this discourse, then became the (counter-) model to which subsequent authors articulated in response their own claims to intellectual authority. Julian competed with Constantine in asserting his capability of interpreting the providential design in both the past and present, while Christian intellectuals capitalized on his death in Persia to invalidate his claims to intellectual authority and reassert their own, even over the emperors they served. This monograph is an evidently massive undertaking that bases macroscopic historical claims on a series of close and scrupulously contextual readings. My above synopsis does not do justice to the feast of insights it has in store, but space denies an exhaustive outline of its intricate organization of chapters and subsections. This work is essential reading for scholars of late antique history, philosophy, literature, and religion, particularly for its demonstration of how these subdisciplines seamlessly blend into one another more than previously assumed. Such benefits to our collective understanding of this period are the fruit of the larger project of late antique studies generally to dismantle the artificial walls that modern philology had erected between (pagan) "classics" and "philosophy" and Christian "patristics" and "theology. " Ancient Christianity and Christian culture shared similar, if not the same linguistic and educational contexts with non-Christian philosophy and literature, and the categorical differences that religious affiliation can make have often been overstated. This dissolution of boundaries, however, must be undertaken with care—at least in the case of Julian, where Christianizing readings of his thought and action have recently resurged and risk replicating the very apologetics of Julian's original detractors who accused him of aping their religion. Niccolai, thankfully, does not fall into this trap. . .