Histos  () – THE CASTING OF JULIAN THE APOSTATE ‘IN THE LIKENESS’ OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT: A TOPOS IN ANTIQUE HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ITS MODERN ECHOES* Fluellen: Alexander, God knows … [did] kill his best friend Cleitus. Gower: Our king is not like him in that: he never killed any of his friends. Fluellen: It is not done well, mark you now, to take the tales out of my mouth, ere it is made and finished. I speak but in the figures and comparisons of it … [Henry V: iv.] Abstract. Parallels between Julian the Apostate and Alexander the Great were drawn re- peatedly in antiquity. Although the comparison instantiates a familiar topos in the reper- toire of Roman imperial panegyrists and historiographers, in Julian’s case a unique com- plexity attaches to the ‘Alexander comparison’ on several counts. Close reading discloses lines of influence and reaction holding between the earlier and later testimonies, and what some of them postulate reflects an awareness of observations made about Alexan- der in Julian’s writings that indicate a strong interest in him on the emperor’s own part. Moreover, the image of Julian as an obsessive ‘Alexander-emulator’ transmitted in one strand of the ancient tradition has a modern counterpart in some scholarship which as- cribes to him a deepening psychological inclination to identify with, or to rival, Alexan- der. This paper aims both to explicate the formation and development of the theme of Julian’s ‘likeness to Alexander’ as an antique literary construct, and to review the modern representation of him as a passionate ‘Alexander-emulator’, arranged in four sections: I. Introduction; II. Precedents and parallels: the ‘likeness to Alexander’ theme as a literary topos; III. The passage of the Julian–Alexander comparison from rhetoric to historiogra- phy in the external testimonies: (i) Libanius; (ii) Ammianus; (iii) the Christian testimonies (Gregory Nazianzen, Philostorgius and Socrates Scholasticus); IV. Alexander’s image in Julian’s writings: the hypothesis of emulation reviewed. I. Introduction Parallels were repeatedly drawn in antiquity between the cases of Julian the Apostate and Alexander the Great; attested first in rhetorical contexts dur- ing Julian’s reign and shortly after his death, the practice recurs in variant forms in late-fourth and fifth century historical narratives, pagan and Chris- tian. Per se, the comparison instantiates a familiar trope in the repertoire of * I thank the Editors, Dr David Hunt and the anonymous referees for helpful com- ments. Copyright ©  Rowland Smith The Casting of Julian ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander  Roman imperial panegyric and historiography: a fair number of earlier em- perors had been represented as resembling Alexander in traits of character, or as aspiring to emulate his achievements. But Julian’s case is quite excep- tional for the range and intertextual relationships of the testimonies at issue, for the variety and intensity of the associations with Alexander that they pos- tulate—and for the significance some modern Julianic scholars attach to them. Certainly, if some of the retrospective antique reports are credited, more than casual evocation of the ‘Alexander style’ was involved. In his Monody, for instance, Julian’s friend and admirer Libanius mourned him as one who had taken the precedent deeply to heart: Alexander had been ‘dear to him, allowing him no sleep’ (Or. .). The image of the insomniac ad- mirer was a fleeting aside in the speech, and studiedly derivative, but the underlying notion that Julian had idealized and tried to emulate Alexander from a distance of seven centuries recurs elsewhere in Libanius and in later historiographic texts—and on the face of things, it attaches nicely to testi- mony from Julian himself: at one time, he avowed, the thought of trying to rival Alexander, and of failing in the attempt, had used to make him tremble (ad Them. ab). We shall return later to the detail of that avowal; just what it implies about Alexander’s exemplary standing in Julian’s eyes is a delicate question. But it undeniably betokens a keen interest in Alexander that regis- tered often in his writings, and some of the ‘psychologizing’ claims subse- quently made on that score in antiquity have modern counterparts in a strand of scholarship which judges Julian not so much interested in Alexan- der as gripped by an obsessive wish to emulate him. In Anglophone scholarship the roots of this idea run back a century, to a review by Norman Baynes of Seeck’s account of Julian in his Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt; whereas Seeck had reckoned the talk of Julian’s modelling himself on Alexander a rhetorical fabrication, Baynes argued for its basis in historical reality on the strength of details in fifth century Chris- tian historians’ reports. In variant forms, the idea has figured in studies of Julian from the s onwards. It was touched upon, albeit briefly and war- ily, in Bowersock’s biography. Bowersock looked more to Julian’s own tes- timony than the later reports adduced by Baynes, but he did not doubt that Julian had adopted Alexander as ‘one of his great models’—and in a discus- sion of Julian’s Caesars, he hinted that something more than a wish to emu-  See below, p. .  Baynes, () – (an excerpt from a review of Seeck, Geschichte IV (Berlin ), first published in EHR  () –, disputing remarks by Seeck ibid. pp.  and ). On Baynes’ related claim that the imitatio Alexandri ascribed to Alexander Severus in the HA discloses the Vita Alexandri a work of propaganda composed in Julian’s reign, see Syme () –.  Rowland Smith late his military success was involved. The fictional Alexander in Caesars (b) seeks to rebut the charge of harsh treatment of men he suspected of disloyalty by insisting that he had only punished the guilty, and had re- pented for any excessive harshness even in their cases. On Bowersock’s view, Julian was here projecting onto the figure of Alexander his own ‘obses- sion with the problem of excessive severity’; the words Alexander speaks were obliquely expressing anxieties and resentments that Julian had come to harbour at Antioch, as his relations with the local population deteriorated. Athanassiadi was more emphatic on the matter. She represented Julian’s sense of affinity with Alexander as a solipsistic notion that gripped him late in his reign, as his hopes for a rapid pagan revival began to falter. She envis- aged a striking change in his attitude to Alexander, a swing from ‘bitter’ criticism in the late s to a self-identifying ‘obsession’ with him by the time he set out for Persia in ; the invasion was a venture ‘conceived in terms of the heroic exploits of Alexander’, the last refuge of a ruler ‘mesmerized by an Alexandrian vision of Persian conquest [who] found it more and more difficult to maintain his contact with reality’ and ended up ‘totally es- tranged’. On that score, Athanassiadi’s picture chimed with studies of Julian’s Persian campaign published by Wirth and Marcone in the late s. Mod- ern accounts of the campaign have usually construed it as intended to last one season and as directed to limited military and diplomatic purposes, on the presupposition that an attempt to conquer and permanently annex all of Persia would have been quite unfeasible in the conditions obtaining. Wirth argued, though, that the infeasibility of total conquest had not deterred Julian from launching a project for open-ended campaigning and cultural assimilation modelled on Alexander’s eastern conquests; and he speculated that Julian’s death was effectively suicide—a wish to fall in battle rather than face up to the enterprise’s failure. Marcone, for his part, construed the cam- paign as an attempt to achieve an Alexander-like military success that would justify Julian’s trust in the gods and reinvigorate his programme for a pagan restoration. The hypothesis that Julian envisaged the annexation and cul- tural assimilation of Persia remains controversial, but it has been guardedly  Bowersock () , –, , –, with Bowersock () –. I dispute this in- terpretation of Caes. b below, pp. –.  Athanassiadi[-Fowden] () – (citing Baynes), –.  See Ridley () –, Matthews () –.  Wirth () – passim, esp. – and –; Marcone () –.  For subsequent reaffirmations of the campaign’s more limited aims and intended du- ration, see below, p.  and n. . The Casting of Julian ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander  re-argued lately—and the view that he was psychologically inclined to iden- tify with Alexander has gained wider currency, the passing objections of some doubters notwithstanding. A modern commentary on Ammianus speaks of the ‘fact’ that ‘Julian venerated and desired to rival Alexander’, and the judgement seems gnomically endorsed in Fowden’s description of him as ‘one of the Alexander legend’s prize victims’. The imprint of Wirth’s arguments is clear, too, in Rosen’s important recent biography of Julian: it pictures him near the end of his reign as a ‘Verlierer’ adrift in Persia—a ‘lost man’ in doomed pursuit of ‘d[ie] Spuren Alexanders’. In what follows, I aim both to explicate Julian’s ‘likeness to Alexander’ as a theme in antique rhetoric and historiography, and to review the mod- ern hypothesis that he had indeed adopted Alexander as a model whose achievements he passionately strove to emulate. The two issues are formally separable: what was postulated retrospectively in antiquity about Julian’s sense of affinity with Alexander merits study in its own right for its literary and historical interest, irrespective of its truth or falsity—and the crucial test for the modern hypothesis lies more with Julian’s own testimony than the later tradition. But in practice, the issues often overlap: some of the later tes- timonies, even if they are fictive, reflect awareness of pertinent remarks in his writings, and closely studied they can yield insights into the historical as well as the legendary Julian. I shall first place the external testimonies’ asso- ciation of Julian with Alexander in a broader Roman imperial setting, ob- serving its points of contact and difference with a pre-existing cultural and literary practice (Section II). Then (III) I pass to close discussion of the spe- cific parallels postulated in these testimonies, with an eye to their terms of comparison and intended purports, their historical and literary contexts and their intertextual relationships, and their value as evidence of the historical reality of Alexander-imitation in Julian’s publicity. Lastly (IV), I review the representation of Julian as a passionate emulator of Alexander in its ancient and modern variants, measuring it against what Julian’s own writings dis- close about his interest in him. To be sure, Julian’s own observations and professions on that score must themselves be read in their literary and his- torical contexts, and in the light of his reliably attested public actions; but they remain privileged evidence of his thought and motivation.  Seager () –.  For doubts, see Smith, () –; Lane Fox () , –.  den Boeft et al. () . See also Franco ().  Fowden ()  (cf. p. : for Julian, Alexander stood ‘not just [for] military glory but for cultural domination’).  Rosen () –, and ch.  (‘Der Verlierer’) passim, esp. .  Rowland Smith II. Precedents and Parallels: the ‘Likeness to Alexander’ Theme as a Literary Topos As an emblem of youthful energy and invincible martial glory, the figure of the Ἀνίκητος Alexander always held a unique glamour in antiquity, and numerous Roman emperors—not to mention Hellenistic kings, and the odd late Republican magnate—either sought to evoke his style in their own pub- licity, or at least were flatteringly associated with him by contemporaries. Rhetorical handbooks commended the ‘likeness to Alexander’ theme as a standard ploy for orators addressing emperors, and it came easily to impe- rial biographers and historians to evoke the trope to glamorize a ruler’s memory. Such comparatio will potentially embrace any report that associates an emperor with Alexander on any ground. Moderns seek to differentiate vari- ant connotations within the theme: a report that implies a conscious effort on an emperor’s part to copy or evoke the precedent of Alexander in par- ticular features of public style or action is said to attribute ‘Alexander- imitation’ to him; ‘Alexander-emulation’ points to something deeper—an impulse to rival Alexander’s achievements. In practice, though, imprecision or allusiveness in the evidence often elides the distinctions between the cate- gories. On a strict test, anyway, the historicity of imitation or emulation of Alexander by a given emperor will only be conclusively established by his own written testimony, or by clear contemporary epigraphic or numismatic evidence. Any retrospective literary report that postulates imitatio or aemulatio must always be appraised with an eye to its particular historical and literary contexts; the writer could as easily be inventing or repeating fictions as re- cording facts. In Julian’s case, not all of the testimonies at issue postulate any conscious intention to copy Alexander. Of those that do so, some might only mean to suggest occasional imitation of the ‘Alexander style’; others imply a deeper impulse to emulate. On each count, historical and literary precedents could  On the Hellenistic precedents, see Bohm () and Stewart (); for Republican precedents, see Weippert () and Green () –. Plut. Pomp. . represents Pompey as a conscious imitator; for modern assessments of the case, and the more am- biguous cases of Caesar and Mark Antony, see Green () , Stewart ()  and Isager () –. For discussion of the representation of Alexander in Republican and early imperial Latin literary contexts, see Spencer ().  Menander Rhetor, ed. Russell and Wilson (), .  Or sometimes, in the case of a ‘bad’ emperor, to imply that the comparison was in- ept: see e.g. Suetonius’ critical (but in my view, probably factually based) reports in Gaius , Nero .  See Green () , whose classification is adopted here with modifications. The Casting of Julian ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander  colour the reports. The evocation of Alexander in imperial publicity was a practice that reached back to the founding emperor: for a time, Augustus used a portrait-head of Alexander as his official seal (Suet. DA ); and soon after his victory at Actium, he had personally crowned Alexander’s mummy at Alexandria with a golden diadem. The crowning emphasized Augustus’ claim to Alexander’s legacy in terms that flattered Greek self-esteem, but Suetonius’ report of the occasion has a Roman triumphal nuance, and a political calculation arguably made Augustus wary of over-fulsome imitatio in his publicity at Rome. The brute facts of Alexander’s kingship and Greek- ness rendered him a provocatively unRoman model in traditionalists’ eyes; a chauvinist strand in Italian opinion chafed at an anti-Roman subtext to the glorification of his memory by Greeks; and under Caesar’s dictatorship, Cicero had pointedly cited Alexander as an emblem of monarchic tyranny. But these were transitory hindrances. By Trajan’s day, no one disputed that Roman emperors were monarchs, and in an empire in which Greeks were serving as senators and winning consulships and governorships, imperial publicists could evoke Alexander’s conquest of Persia to promote an image of Romans and Greeks as fellow-Mediterraneans faced with an alien enemy in the East. Literary interest in the Alexander-comparison quickened at the time, and not just in connexion with Trajan: in the extant evidence, for in- stance, a famous story ascribing Alexander-emulation to Caesar (a story to which Julian himself alludes) is first told by Suetonius and Plutarch; and Suetonius supplies our earliest testimony to Augustus’ veneration of the mummy. The ‘likeness to Alexander’ theme always had particular appeal for court writers and historians in connexion with emperors who contemplated aggressive campaigns beyond the eastern frontier: Trajan, Caracalla and Alexander Severus, were all remembered as ‘emulators’. And from the ear-  Suet., DA.: Augustus had pointedly declined to pass on to view the sarcophagi of the Ptolemies, mere ‘corpses’ in his eyes.  Kienast () –.  Chauvinism: Livy, ..ff, with Ogilvie’s comm. ad loc.; Cic. Att. .., with Fears () –.  Spawforth () –.  Suet. DJ  and Plut. Caes.  report the anecdote in variant forms, discussed in Green () . Julian’s allusion (Caes. c) follows the Plutarchian version, significantly: the doubts of Bouffartigue () – notwithstanding, it is safe to assume extensive direct reading of the Parallel Lives by Julian. By contrast, he probably never read Suetonius’ Lives (Plutarch’s imperial biographies, now mostly lost, were an obvious alternative: see Bow- ersock () ; Smith () –, n. .  Trajan: e.g. Dio .. and ., with Syme () –; Caracalla: Dio ..; .–; Ps.-Victor, Epitome ., with Stewart ()  and Potter () –; Alexander  Rowland Smith lier third century onwards the appeal gained a sharper edge, inasmuch as the Sassanian kings who now ruled Persia were reportedly seeking to restore the old Achaemenid empire destroyed by Alexander. Military engagements in other spheres could still prompt the Alexander-comparison, of course: in /, for instance, a city in Greek Asia struck Alexander-coins in honour of Claudius II (the emperor from whom Julian’s own dynasty would later claim descent), to celebrate his victory over the Goths. But when the pub- licity of Tetrarchic and Constantinian emperors played on the theme, it was often in connexion with the ‘Sassanian problem’. In , Diocletian’s re- spectful treatment of the captured wife of King Narses was perhaps meant to evoke Alexander’s courtesy towards Darius’ womenfolk; in , amidst rumours that Constantine was planning a Persian invasion, a gold medallion struck to commemorate his Vicennalia portrayed him in the ‘Alexander- style’; and in , only fifteen years before Julian’s accession as Caesar, his cousin Constantius II (currently at war with Shapur II) was flatteringly compared to Alexander in the work of court-literature known to moderns as Alexander’s Itinerary. And the theme would persist well after Julian’s day, in panegyrics of the Theodosian house: the teenage emperor Honorius, Claudian predicted, would become ‘as great [as Alexander], lording it over the Indians, worshipped by the Mede’; around the same time, a court- historian was drawing his attention to the example of Aurelian, ‘scarcely dif- ferent from Alexander’. Severus: HA Sev. Alex. .–, . and –, with Rösger () – and Gascou () – (on an inscription from Giufi); cf. Dio ..–, with Millar () Appen- dix V (the ‘Alexander-daimon’ abroad in Thrace in AD ).  Whether the founding Sassanid Ardashir actually held or publicized this aim in the s is controversial: Dio .. and Herodian .. assert that he did, perhaps mislead- ingly projecting a Roman thought-pattern onto him (see Potter () –); cf. Fowden () –, favouring the reality of ‘Sassanian universalism’ from the start. The ‘Achaemenid heritage’ certainly featured in Sassanian propaganda by Julian’s day: see Amm. Marc. .., reporting Shapur II’s letter of AD .  Stewart () , on a coin series from Sagalassos.  Malalas p. ,  [= Dodgeon and Lieu () ]; cf. Plut. Alex. . For a Julianic parallel, see Amm. Marc. .. [= A4 below]. Note also Pan. Lat ..– [AD ?], on the ‘Alexander-like’ diplomacy of Maximian and Diocletian; Ps-Victor, Epit. ., on Galerius’ ‘Alexander-like’ serpent-parent.  War rumours: Optatianus Porfyrius, Carm. . (AD /); medallion: Euseb. VC .., with Cameron and Hall ad loc.  Lane Fox () –.  Claud. IV Cons. Hon., –,  (AD ), Ps.-Victor, Epit. .; cf. Them. Or. .c [AD ] (Arcadius); Pan. Lat. .. (AD ) (Theodosius). The Casting of Julian ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander  A bald claim that one’s emperor surpassed Alexander’s martial prowess might ring hollow, but nuance could circumvent the risk. Fourth century panegyrists amplify on the comparison to turn it to their subject’s advan- tage; they observe of Constantius, say, that he commanded a finer army than Alexander’s; of Constantine, that he made better use of a smaller one and engaged with a more formidable enemy; of Theodosius, that he had be- gun soldiering at a younger age. Or one could affirm that the emperor be- ing praised was more meritorious in the round, by picking up on the charges levelled at Alexander by popularizing philosophers and rhetoricians in their controversiae and declamations: they had long argued that there were aspects to his character and conduct—an inner discontentedness, vainglorious rash- ness and arrogance, an intemperance issuing in bouts of drunken, murder- ous rage—that rendered him a far from perfect regal exemplar. This twist to the ‘likeness to Alexander’ theme, too, had long since become a literary topos, and the fourth century writers often exploit it: they invite their read- ers to compare Alexander’s drunkenness with Constantine’s sobriety; or to observe that his boastfulness and cruelty thankfully found no echo in Con- stantius; or to contrast the self-centredness of his military ambitions with the ‘philanthropy’ of the brother-emperors Valens and Valentinian. Against this background, it is no surprise that Julian in his turn was flat- teringly compared with Alexander in rhetoric (and some have claimed, on medallions) at the time of his own war against Shapur II. In his case, youthfulness added to the glamour: Constantine had been in his fifties when represented in the ‘Alexander-style’ on his vicennial medallion, Trajan in his  Constantius: Itinerarium Alex.  (ix); Constantine: Pan. Lat. ..–; Theodosius: Pan. Lat. ...  For the bearing of Stoic ethics in this connexion (and a compelling refutation of the hypothesis of a single and uniformly hostile ‘Stoic (or Peripatetic, or Cynic) view’ of Alex.), see Brunt () –, with Fears () –. Stoneman () – is clear on the interplay between ‘philosophic’ criticism and the Alexander exemplum in rhetorical discourse.  See e.g. Tac. Ann. ., ostensibly reporting a comparison made soon after Ger- manicus’ death. The prince is extravagantly mourned by his bereft admirers as Alexan- der’s equal as a fighting soldier—but a less rashly impulsive strategist, they are made to add, and a better man for being more even-tempered with his officers, and more self- controlled in his private life. For recent discussion of the passage, see Gissel () – .  Euseb. VC .; .); Itinerarium Al.  (ix); Themistius, Orr. .a (AD ), .a–b (AD ).  Alföldi () postulated that a contorniate medallion was issued at Rome in late /early  on which a portrait-head of ‘Julian as Alexander’ figured; I shall argue elsewhere (paper forthcoming) that Alföldi was quite mistaken in this particular.  Rowland Smith sixties when he invaded Parthia; Julian, like Alexander, enjoyed outstanding military success on first coming to power in his early twenties, and died at thirty-one or so. This chiming of contingent biographical details came to matter especially for his later admirers, who had to accommodate a blatant difference between the cases: Julian’s expedition had failed disastrously. In the wishful eyes of pagan authors who liked to picture him as a hero snatched away in the prime of life, his death in faraway Mesopotamia at the same age as Alexander carried a tragic resonance that could encourage a more elaborate exercise in literary parallelism. A popular notion always per- sisted, for instance, that Alexander had been treacherously poisoned by a Macedonian hand—and in the wake of Julian’s death, some were quick to hint that the fatal spear had been cast by a disaffected Christian within the Roman ranks. In principle, then, the combined force of a literary convention and some adventitious biographical similarities might suffice to explain the ancient writers’ readiness to connect Julian with Alexander. But on a closer view, the issue is more complex. The grounds of comparison adduced are dis- tinctly varied: there are significant differences of emphasis even between au- thors who use the ‘likeness to Alexander’ theme to commend Julian (and there were also detractors who drew the comparison to a very different pur- pose). In its usual application in praise of Roman emperors, the Alexander- comparison turned principally on the ruler’s claim to invincible excellence as a military commander. Julian’s admirers did not neglect to praise his merits or bravery as a general, but even in his lifetime that was not the only point at issue, and after his death it was manifestly problematic: the stark fact was that his career had ended in a humiliating military catastrophe. Yet that did not deter those who wrote on him with hindsight from persisting with the comparison. Admirers would defend its aptness by picking up on other estimable character traits traditionally ascribed to Alexander—his phenomenal energy and self-challenging drive, his regal generosity and chivalrous ‘greatness of soul’, his respect for philosophy and his love of Homer. The heart of the matter, on this view, was not so much a putative wish on Julian’s part for military success on a scale that rivalled Alexander’s as a genuine affinity of character conjoining the pair. In the reports of Julian’s detractors, this notion was to be reformulated with a subversive  Julian was / when appointed Caesar in November , and / when he died (Amm. Marc. ..: ‘anno aetatis altero et tricesimo’). The precise year and month of his birth is debated (see Paschoud () – (= n. , on Zos. ..):  is preferable to .  Lib. Or. . (on which see below, p. ); cf. Amm. Marc. ... Later Christian sources warmed to the theme: the claim is well discussed in Paschoud () – (= n. ). The Casting of Julian ‘in the Likeness’ of Alexander  slant: Christian writers vehemently hostile to the Apostate’s memory were quite prepared to represent him as an emperor who had tried to emulate Alexander’s achievements out of a sense of spiritual affinity with him; but as they represented it, the affinity existed only as a delusion in Julian’s mind. How well the retrospective antique representation of Julian as a passion- ate Alexander-emulator corresponds with Julian’s own testimony is a ques- tion I defer for now; I wish first to scrutinize the external testimonies in their own right, and their full variety. On close reading, their evidential value will be found to lie mainly in what they disclose about Julian’s ‘likeness to Alex- ander’ as a developing literary construct; whether any of them does any- thing to establish the historicity of even casual Alexander-imitation by Julian is a matter for debate. III. The Julian–Alexander Comparison from Rhetoric to Historiography: the External Testimonies Analysed As the evidence survives, five authors are chiefly at issue. Three (Libanius, Ammianus, and Gregory Nazianzen) were contemporaries of Julian; the others (Philostorgius and Socrates Scholasticus) were writing in the fifth cen- tury. We can best explain the passage of Julian’s ‘likeness to Alexander’ from rhetoric to historiography by analysing the testimonies of each of the five in turn: the pagan orator and the pagan historian first, then their Chris- tian counterparts. On what grounds did they compare the two cases? What were their individual presuppositions and purposes? What lines of influence, or reaction, ran within the five? Our answers to these questions will inform our judgement of the value of those testimonies which assert or imply imita- tion or emulation of Alexander. III.i. Libanius Libanius is central to our enquiry: as the evidence stands, he was the first to draw the Julian–Alexander comparison; he drew it more often, and with  See below, pp. –.  Themistius and Himerius wrote panegyrics of Julian, both now lost: that of Them- istius (attested by Lib. Epp.  and ) perhaps celebrated Julian’s investiture as cos. IV on  Jan. ; Him. Or.  (Colonna) survives only as a title. Alexander’s name does not figure in the extant Gratiarum actio (= Pan. Lat. ) of Mamertinus, delivered on  Jan. . At a pinch, Mamertinus might be credited with an oblique allusion to him in a passage praising Julian’s victory at Strasbourg in  (Pan. Lat. ..): Nixon and Rodgers ()  n.  suggest that his phrase ‘uno proelio debellatur’ may recall the Alexander ‘[qui] rem gessit proelii unius eventu’ of Pan. Lat. .. (addressed to Constantine). For a later,