Customer Reviews

Julian the Apostate

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

There are certain historical figures that are nearly impossible to get to know in anything approaching an objective sense. Something about them compels us to a judgement. Julian the Apostate is one of those rare figures who forces us to react emotionally - no matter how objective we think we are. And our reaction often says more about who WE are, than about the object of our judgement.

Flavius Julianus was the last pagan Emperor of Rome. He briefly attempted to reverse the ongoing Christianization of the Roman Empire begun by his detested uncle, the Emperor Constantine. He failed miserably and died young, but his attempt to reverse the cultural tides of his day will always fascinate any who encounter Julian and his century.

Glen Bowersock's book is a classic example of 20th Century historical revisionism. The historical consensus concerning Julian since the time of Gibbon and Voltaire has been cautiously admiring on the whole. Bowersock seeks to reverse that consensus by reinterpeting the abundant historical evidence. In doing so his dislike of Julian is displayed on nearly every page. I can't go into detail here, but there are numerous instances in which the author achieves a "new" interpretation by placing the very worst construction on the evidence. In nearly every case he favors whatever presents Julian in the least favorable light. Nowhere is this more evident than in Bowersock's account of Julian's "usurpation" of the title of Augustus in 361. He strains every nerve to prove the mutiny of the soldiers was engineered by Julian and his friends and that they lied about it later, all against formidable evidence to the contrary.

That being said, this is an interesting book. The author does a good job introducing the historical context, and his scholarly account of the facts of Julian's life is lively. Read the darn thing, but do yourself a favor and read the best account ever written of Julian's reign, that contained in the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus. It is available in translation as a Penguin paperback. Ammianus served in Julian's army and was a balanced witness of the Apostate's good and bad qualities. Julian was a complex man. He was a soldier, emperor, scholar, orator, philosopher, even a political prisoner for some years, and a deeply religious pagan. He was also credulous, didactic, a fanatic, an egomaniac, and even a public nuisance upon occasion. In the end however, our very best witness, Ammianus, admired Julian greatly. I must confess, so do I.

I found the book thoroughgoing in biographic details on Julian's life. But particularly disappointing is the author's neglect of Julian's anti-Christian arguments, which make fascinating reading. Oddly, Bowersock ignores, in his Bibliography, the 3-volume set of Julian's writings published some years ago by Loeb Classics. This omission is especially galling since B. maintains many of J.'s writings are unavailable, but some he so characterizes ARE available in the Loeb volumes! Of particular interest was J.'s diatribe against the "Galilean," Jesus--which is found in Loeb, but all but ignored in Bowersock's book. This is perplexing to say the least.

I wanted to like this book. I really did. I'm not a massive fan of Julian like some of the other reviewers here are. I appreciate the man for what he was but I never idolized him as some sort of pagan crusader. Reading some of these reviews before I started the book I wasn't worried since so many of them seem to be slightly batty. Unfortunately, they're also right. I had to write an essay on Julian so I read a lot on him. There are several other biographies out there (The Last Pagan and The Emperor Julian are quite good) and they capture the man's essence better than Bowersock. Many of the books that I had to read, scholarly works included, insult this book pretty blatantly. Rowland Smith in his book 'Julian's Gods' spends several pages rebuking Bowersock's vision of Julian as a "pathological figure." He is polite enough not to mention him obviously by name, but a quick glance at the footnotes reveals that every time he criticizes this interpretation he is referencing Bowersock. The way in which Bowersock managed to compact all of Julian's life into 119 pages is by dismissing all of Julian's religious views as unimportant (You learn nothing except that he was pagan and fancied himself a philosopher), and skimming over anything that seems to his credit. Julian was, for example, unquestionably the most approachable emperor of the Fourth Century, largely because he based his style of rule on Rome's previous philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius. All that Bowersock says about this is something snide about how he seemed to see himself in everyone he admired, no matter how dissimilar.

I truly don't know what problem this guy has with Julian. Every time he has more than one source of information he goes with the most insulting or critical one. For example: on page 107 he describes how two martyrs (Bonosus and Maximilianus) were beheaded for not removing the Christian symbol from their standards whereas it is just as likely that they were actually executed for criticizing the Emperor just before battle. He took the heavily biased stories from the Christians and takes them at face value while dismissing the pagan ones. In a similar vein he takes his description for Julian's behavior from possibly his greatest enemy Gregory of Nazianzus and says that it is essentially true.

Some examples of bias from his own words include: "when Julian died, all Christians and many pagans received the news with relief." That's right off of page 1 and the point is very debatable. Certainly he doesn't have the evidence to prove that. Julian's writings are described as being "petulant and self-righteous" and filled with his "unsettling laughter." (13) "Like them [Lenin and Mao-Tse-Tung who he's comparing him to], Julian was neither gregarious nor, in the social sense of the term, even civilized." (20)

Essentially, the way that Julian is described is as a dull, humorless, cruel, ascetic, self-righteous, unprincipled, puritanical, savage, bigot. I am using only words that Bowersock himself applies to Julian throughout the course of the book. This is not the language of an unbiased historian. To anyone who doubts that these traits do not describe, or at least dominate, Julian need only read his own writings. He has written three books worth of various works from orations to letters to satires. How Bowersock can describe the author of the Caesars as a dull and humorless person is beyond me. Sure it's not sidesplittingly hilarious, but the tone is very lighthearted throughout and you can feel the tongue kept very much in cheek. Bowersock however, takes it as a serious expression of Julian's beliefs even though Julian himself describes it as a comic work. The same goes for the Beard-Hater. Although that one is rather more bitter it can hardly be described as a "hectoring, injured, [and] repetitive" work filled with "Julian's unsettling laughter."

Until I read these works for myself I had no reason to doubt that his interpretation was true. Now I can't even see hints of his belief. Please don't take my word for this. Read those books yourself. They reveal a lot about the man's character and they are sometimes very entertaining. They are available in Loeb editions (Volume I, Volume II, Volume III) which are kind of expensive, but they are probably available for free online as well. So do yourself a favor and skip this book. Read one of the other excellent biographies. 'The Last Pagan' is probably the most readable of the two. Or read the works of the contemporary historian Ammianus Marcellinus (Volume I, Volume II, Volume III) or Julian's friend Libanius (Orations, Volume I, Orations, Volume II). These books will provide you with a much more accurate glimpse of the man who has come down through history as Julian the Apostate.

Julian was Roman emperor from 361 to 363. He was the last pagan ruler of the Roman Empire. Since he had began life as a Christian, later Christian writers refer to him as Julian the Apostate. Julian's predecessors Constantine the Great and Constantius had made Christianity the state religion of the empire. Julian attempted to undo this situation, consciously striving for a pagan revival. Naturally, this has endeared him to people critical of Christianity ever since, while Christians have seen him as a villain.

G.W. Bowersock's biography of Julian is highly critical of the pagan emperor, depicting him as a religious fanatic and ascetic revolutionary, comparing Julian to Lenin and Mao Zedong. Julian wasn't simply a Neo-Platonist philosopher, but also believed in the more murky parts of paganism: the efficacy of animal sacrifice, magic and oracles. The future emperor even had weird religious visions, and his entourage consisted of both educated pagan sophists and notorious theurgists. (It should be noted that Neo-Platonism at this point in time combined philosophy with theurgy, the latter being no better than magic in the author's opinion.) Julian quite consciously modelled himself on Socrates, and attempted to create a centralized pagan organization, in effect a kind of pagan church, with himself as high priest. The pagan church was to mimic the Christians in charity to the poor and the stranger, something Julian believed was the main reason for the success of Christianity.

Bowersock believes that the religious tolerance proclaimed by Julian at the beginning of his reign was a ruse, and that his real policy was to persecute the Christians. When a pagan mob at Alexandria killed the Arian bishop of the city, Julian criticized their actions but without interfering. More anti-Christian riots followed in other towns of the empire. Julian also banished Christian teachers from higher education by prohibiting them from teaching the Greek classics, such as Homer or Hesiod. Before Julian's fateful campaign against the Persians, during which the emperor was eventually killed, he unsuccessfully attempted to de-Christianize the Roman troops, executing or banishing officers who refused to accept the new pagan order. A more idiosyncratic project was Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, a project met with unease even by the Jews themselves. After a series of mysterious accidents, the plans had to be abandoned. One reason why "the apostate" wanted the Jewish temple reconstructed was to disprove the prophecies of Jesus about the destruction of the temple!

However, even Bowersock has to admit that Julian also carried out extensive and positive reforms: at one stroke, he did away with the truly Byzantine bureaucracy at Constantinople. The emperor also purged the informers, devolved power to the senate and the ancient cities, and attempted to curb other forms of corruption and abuse as well. The author is uncharitable to Julian's attempt to deal with a famine in Syrian Antioch by imposing price controls. Here, the problem was obviously that Julian interfered too little, rather than too much. Besides, Julian seems to have saved the good people of Antioch by forcing the bakers of the city to provide cheap bread for the inhabitants. (The old fox apparently understood the dictum that we don't get bread because of the benevolence of the baker!)

G.W. Bowersock believes that Julian the Apostate ultimately made himself impossible among both Christians and pagans. His attempts to revive paganism were met with incomprehension and scorn at Antioch, as were his hostility towards theatres and chariot-races, which he would rather have prohibited entirely. Still, it's difficult not to feel a certain sympathy with the ascetic emperor when he accused the Antiochenes of being ungrateful to him. After all, he had saved them from hunger and attempted to strongarm their rich elite. Perhaps the citizens of Antioch preferred their chariot-races...

"Julian the Apostate" is a well written book. A few chapters seem directed at fellow historians, but most of the book is relatively easy to read, and can be digested even by an average reader. It does help if you already have a working knowledge of Roman history.

Of course, the book is controversial (see the other customer reviews). Julian is usually painted in a much more positive light, as the tolerant reformer and philosopher-king. Still, it might be interesting to read a negative view of Julian as well, especially since Bowersock doesn't seem to be arguing from a Christian perspective.

For this reason, I give the book five stars. However, if Bowersock is right still remains to be seen...

as some truthful readers mentioned earlier, this authors contempt, for julian, is echoed on every page. He claims to be trying to paint a picture of julian, as an average guy, with a temper, and quite a few nervous problems. now, there are some truths in the nervous part. Julian, was a tad nervous, and he should have been... his entire family, was murdered at the hands of the christian emperors, constantineII, and constantinus... furthermore, he knew, pretty well, judging by his accounts, that he was a pawn, in the pollitical needs of constantinus. He didnt become caesar, because he was truly seen as "the man for the job" rather, constantinus, sent julian to gaul, in the hopes that he would die there. this is documented, in julians writings, as well as a few others. constantinus did not favor or trust him, because of what he had done to julians family. Now, if i was in this position, i would be a tad on the nervous side, myself... but anyways, the best records, i know of, for and about julian, are the three volumes of his writings, available from loeb classics, and also, the best account of julians millitary acheivements, as well as pollitical and religious goals, were written by one of his soldiers, in the rae gestae, also from loeb classics. Buy those, and learn what this astounding man, really saw, in himself, and his world... ;)

Let me say first that Julian II is my favorite emperor. I spent more than $500 to have one of his "Apis" coins made into a pendant. That being said, I don't know what the other reviewers have agains Mr. Bowersock. Julian did have a temper. From certain perspectives he did persecute Christians. But, as for sheer unbiased treatment of ALL the extant contemporaneous sources, this book does a wonderful job. Rather than getting the feeling that Mr. Bowersock was chastizing Julian for his temper it was more like he was explaining the public sentiment or sometimes (sometimes painfully) making excuses for him. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know a little bit more about the "last pagan emperor". Not only was Mr. Bowersock very scholarly, but very entertaining to read. The only reason it missed five stars by me is because the maps (only 2, alas) were almost indecipherable - and this from an (amateur) student of ancient history.

My goal here is not to add to the quite excellent reviews about this revisionist hatchet job on Julian but to offer some of the other books that offer both scholarly research, excellent writing, and all without having an axe to grind about a man long dead and no longer able to defend himself, except, of course, through his own extensive writings.

By all means, check out the many other books that put Julian into a proper historical and religious context. He was a fascinating figure in Roman history, a man of many interests and talents (political, military, a devout Pagan, and a fine writer in his own right) and the last emperor to try and reverse the tide of Christianity loosed by his relative, Constantine.

God Against the Gods by Jonathan Kirsh (an excellent read not only about Julian but the historical context of the conflict between monotheism and polytheism)

Julian by Gore Vidal

Julian's Gods by Rowland Smith

The Last Pagan by Adrian Murdoch

Julian's own writings, including "Against the Galileans" & the three volume Loeb Classics series on Julian

The Later Roman Empire: A.D. 354-378 by Ammianus Marcellinus,

Bowersock's description of the late Roman Empire's most interesting personality does not provide any new insite on Julian the Apostate. Bowersock descriptions of Julian's early years does provide some merit to his book.

You can learn more reading either Julian's writings, other primary sources and other books.

There is nothing I can say that has not been said before about this book. Just, read another book - that is actually objective (The Last Pagan, etc.). Or reading Julian's writings, that are available free on the internet. This has been a phenomenal waste of time. I learned nothing but the dripping scorn and contempt the auhor has about the subject he is writing about.

Books about a historical personage has to be even handed and objective; if subjective, it has to be a plausible interpretation based on the primary sources. This book is neither.

The fourth-century Roman Emperor Julian attempted the impossible: to stop the Christianization of the Roman Empire put into motion by Constantine the Great. Branded "the Apostate" by later critics, Julian reigned only about two years, dying in battle against the Persians. This is a balanced, accessible biography that captures the intensity of Julian's Hellenistic Paganism--an intensity that frequently bordered on fanaticism. Bowersock is careful not to romanticize Julian and notes that when he died, practically everyone in Rome breathed a sigh of relief. This is an interesting, well written work that should interest students of ancient history as well as those who enjoy reading about the history of early Christianity