L’opinion commune pense généralement que les écrits de l’Empereur Julien n’ont guère irrigué la littérature grecque des siècles suivants. Du côté païen, les philosophes néoplatoniciens, auraient presque complètement ignoré son œuvre parce qu’ils n’y reconnaissaient pas vraiment de dimension philosophique. Quant aux écrivains chrétiens, surtout animés d’intentions polémiques contre le paganisme et l’Apostat, ils auraient fait peu de cas des écrits de Julien, peu cités et déformés. Une analyse du mode de citation des œuvres et un repérage systématique des grands concepts de Julien permet de nuancer et d’infirmer ces vues. En effet, des écrivains chrétiens comme Grégoire de Nazianze et Jean Chrysostome citent de nombreux termes empruntés au vocabulaire philosophico-religieux de Julien et les historiens ecclésiastiques comme Socrate de Constantinople et Sozomène mentionnent souvent de longs extraits de textes entiers, notamment les lettres. L’attitude des auteurs païens est plus ambiguë, oscillant entre un éloge de la valeur littéraire de ses écrits et un silence quasi absolu, lui-même ambigu car souvent associé à un double langage tendant à rendre un hommage appuyé à la théologie solaire et à l’antichristianisme de Julien. On peut suivre le fil de cette tradition polémique depuis Libanios, Ammien Marcellin et Saloustios jusqu’au philosophe Ammonios d’Alexandrie. / The critics have usually thought that Emperor Julian's books have not deeply influenced the literature of Late Antiquity. On the one hand, it would seem that pagan writers, especially neoplatonic philosophers, have completely ignored his works because they denied them any philosophical significance. On the other hand, Christian writers, obsessed by their polemic against paganism and the Apostate, would have paid little attention to his writings, using very few quotations and above all misquoting him. However, if we research systematically how Julian’s works and the main points of his thought appear in this literature, we can challenge such a statement. In fact, Christian writers like Gregory of Nazianzenus and John Chrysostom quote many words from Julian's philosophical and theological vocabulary and church historians like Socrates and Sozomen quote many large extracts of Julian, especially his letters. We can’t find the same phenomenon with pagan writers. Their attitude towards Julian is ambiguous: behind a general eulogy or a complete silence, we can see that several of them, like Libanius, Ammianus, Sallustius and Ammonius of Alexandria tried to continue his thought, especially his devotion to King Helios and his polemic against Christianity, using language with double meaning.

Univ. College, Diss.--London, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 282 - 307) and index. Understanding religious identity in fourth century Antioch -- Imperial society, religion and literary culture in fourth century Antioch -- Constructed and strategic religious identities and allegiances -- Chrysostom and the construction of religious identities -- Libanius and the strategic use of religious allegiance -- Religious identities and other forms of social identification -- Religious identity and other social identities in Chrysostom -- Religious allegiance and other social identities in Libanius -- Religious identities and social organization -- Chrysostom and social structure among Christians in Antioch -- Libanius, religious allegiance, and social structure -- Assessing the impact of constructions of identity -- Religious identity, religious practice and personal religious power -- Conclusion.