The Beard-Hater and Letters

ON JULIAN'S MISOPOGON. 5

...handsome and with a very straight nose, a mouth somewhat large, his lower lip divided original: "labro inferiore diviso." This likely refers to a prominent vertical groove or a slight cleft in the lip., a thick and arched neck, and vast, broad shoulders. From his head down to the tips of his nails, his features were joined in a straight alignment, giving him great strength and speed in running. Here, through the narrowness of his mind, the same fickleness original: "levitas." In this context, it refers to a lack of moral or intellectual stability. noted above is observed; yet a physical firmness is added, from which a great portion of his later military glory was achieved.

But on this entire matter, the oration of Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–389 AD) was a Christian theologian and classmate of Julian in Athens; he became one of Julian’s most vocal critics. is more detailed and more candid. He saw Julian as a young man in Athens and discerned his future character from the habits of his soul and body. He speaks as follows in his second book Against Julian:

Then (he says) I felt that I was no poor judge of character, although I am not one of those born with a natural talent for such arts Physiognomy: the pseudo-scientific practice of judging a person's character from their physical appearance. Rather, the inconstancy of his nature and his strange excitability made me capable of divining his future, for he is the best prophet who knows how to guess correctly. Indeed, it seemed to me a sign of no good thing to see a neck bent forward, shoulders that twitched and jumped, a wandering and rolling eye that looked about with a furious gaze, and feet that were unstable and limping. He was a mocker, breathing out insult and contempt; his facial expressions were ridiculous, bearing the same immoderate and unrestrained laughter. He would nod and shake his head without reason, his speech was hesitant and gasping for breath, his questions were inept and foolish, and his answers were no better—clashing with one another, never constant, and never proceeding in an orderly or learned fashion. Why should I pursue every detail? I saw him to be the same man before his deeds as I later knew him to be through his deeds.

These are his words, from which we understand the inherent and inborn perpetual fickleness and inconstancy of this man, so that the primary cause of the errors that followed may already be grasped. Such, then, was his nature. What of his education? By which masters, and by what—