Julian The Apostate

[Zeke]

Hello my friends, I have not been on this website for a very long while for my computer crashed and I just got it back.

 

I am writing a book on Flavius Claudius Julianius the last Pagan Emperor of Rome. Also know as Julian the Apostate. Is a historical Fiction novel but it is looking quite good.

 

Here is some information I have retained so far to give you a little hint of who he was.

 

Roman emperor 361-63, b. at Constantinople in 331, d. 26 June, 363, son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine the Great

His mother was Basilina, the daughter of the governor of Egypt, who died shortly after his birth.

With his stepbrother Gallus, who was some years older, he escaped the massacre of his kinsfolk at Constantinople after the death of Constantine the Great, and was brought up by the eunuch Mardonius and the philosopher Nicocles

[Crysnia]

Wow, I can't wait for you to finish so that we can dive into it. I don't know much about the Apostate but I am willing to help you in anyway. My email is ladypreia@hotmail.com

[Zeke]

Thanks Crysnia.

[Guest cruces]

I will look forward to the Novel as well. The best novel I have read about Julian is by Gore Vidal. The bestseller about the fourth-century Roman emperor who famously tried to halt the spread of Christianity, Julian is widely regarded as one of Gore Vidal

[Guest divusjulius]

New to this forum, first time poster.

 

Read your piece on Julian the apostate. Keep it up, looks good. I have a book you may want to look out for, it is called "The Last Pagan, Julian the Apostate and the Death of The Ancient World". It is written by Adrian Murdoch (who has also done a book on Nero - haven't read it). I found it here in a bookstore in Sydney, Australia. I have been reading a biography of the Emperors and I found Julian incredibly fascinating considering that he tried to lead a push away from Christianity.

[DanM]

Very detailed chronology of events. While its impressive, it paints a picture that is a little different from the impression I have gotten while reading about Julian. I am no expert on Julian and I am no writer so please feel free to dismiss anything I say here. Still, on the off chance that something might be useful, here goes.

 

I agree with the chronology of events 100%. Its just a matter of the minor details where I remember it differently. I think I remember reading somewhere that he was not very attractive. I think some of his features were a little out of proportion and he was a bit paunchy. While he was an intellectual, he was also a dreamer who had a tendency to focus on the ideals more than what was practical. Yet, at the same time he could be very effecient and effective when he set his mind to it. He was a prodigous writer who has been characterized as a bit unfocused and self-indulgent. From what I read he sounded a bit bi-polar. He was an ascetic who greatly reduced his attending staff once he became Emperor. He lived a great deal of his early life in fear of his cousin the Emperor and seemed to make a real effort to keep a low profile for much of his early life.

 

When you roll it all up, you have a brilliant, remarkable man, but I wouldn't really think of a Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Collin Farrel type playing him in the screenplay. He is not the commanding hero who leads through charisma or force of will. Maybe he would be more of a Will Farrel without the jokes. If you have ever seen Will Farrel do an interview then you know what I am talking about. You have someone who is a mass of contradictions. You have someone who is great despite his weaknesses and certainly different because of his excentricities. You have someone whose ability is undeniable, but whose rise to the throne is due more to cirmcustances beyond his control than anything else. You have a man who is a nonconformist and never really comfortable within his own skin while simultaneously being certain he knows how to lead his people to a better life (Paganism).

 

I am not a writer, but to me thats a heck of a lot more interesting material for a character than another card board cutout hero type. You know what I mean? Too many people treat greatness as some absolute and fail to see all of the frailty and weakness that come together in the weird alchemy of greatness. To me, Julian the Apostate is the sort of character who could be original and keep the readers from anticipating too much before it actually happens.

 

Good luck with the book.

[Zeke]

Yeah I had your idea DanM he was more of an intellectual then a fighter or a Carasmatic leader. Though he did lead many Campagains and many of the stories that are told tell of him sleeping with his men on the ground not in and tent like most officers of the day. I don't dout he was crazy and a dreamer as well I am going to point it out in the story. He had wonderful dreams but in relity with his death and his self ingulgences he really never got anything done. But yeah thanks for that I will add it to my reaserch.

[DanM]

Another thing. I may have this wrong, because I am going strictly off memory on this one but I think he also voluntarily submitted to the Imperial senate. At that time, I believe the Senate in Constantinople had no real power and was more of a ceremonial entity than anything else. When Julian became Emperor, however, I believe he made a big show of consulting them and seeking their approval as part of his attempt to revive the old ways.

 

His self-indulgence, as I remember it, seemed to be limited to his writing and his issues of policy. I remember reading somehwere that he could stay up all night writing on some work about philosophy. While he could write incredible volumes of material, the writing seemed a bit unfocused and more slanted than objective.

 

His personal life, however, was as close to ascetic as any of the Emperors in his period. He operated with a greatly reduced household staff and ate very sparingly. As you said, he shared the hardships of his men and demostrated real bravery on the battlefield while not really being the square-jawed hero of a 50s movie.

 

Also, I am fairly sure that he had some belief that the Gods were on his side or something. I don't remember much about this point, but I do believe he saw himself as favored by the old Roman Gods in some way.

 

Sorry I don't remember more, but I hope this helps a bit. If I can get my hands on the book where I originally read this stuff, I will post it here so you can verify if you want.

[Zeke]

Yeah he was the last Pagan Emperor of coarse he was favored by the old gods...he was trying to overthorw Christianity which was gaining in streangth

 

Zeke

[DanM]

Sorry, but I do not think I was clear. As I remember, it was speculated that he felt some personal connection. It wasn't just the favor that the Gods had towards the Emperors. I think he felt like they had chosed him personally as opposed to backing the position he held. Understand the difference? Where it could be potentially meaningful in plot development is to find out if this dynamic affected his decision making at crucial points of his life. I am sure there is a lot of stuff out there on the subject if you are willing to dig for it.

[Zeke]

Yeah I know what you mean. The book however is centered around the evils of Christianity and the changing of a new world. I am a Indo-European Pagan myself so I am giving people a little insite of what happened before Christianity did come to power....most of them who wil read it will be Christians I am assuming. But it will be very anti-Christian not because I hate Christians myslef (I have many Christian friends) its just because of the fact that Julian had personal resentment toward Christanity in general and the book is about him.

 

I honestly do believe he was chosen by the gods...even if that does sound a little childish or too religious that is my honest opinion that Julian was the last great deffender of a collapsing world of Paganism.

 

Zeke

[Ursus]

I don't mean to offend either pagans or Christians, but I'm not sure if Julian's Neoplatonic version of paganism is essentially different from Christianity. Nietzsche once called Christianity "Platonism for the people" by which he meant that some watered-down presumptions of neoplatonism found their way into Christianity. While Nietzsche is hardly an objective critic, I think one has to conclude that early Christianity developed in and was inlfuenced by the mysticism and the philosophy of later Greco-Roman thought. I guess the principle difference is that Neoplatonism may be somewhat more tolerant of differing religions than the early church.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. Neoplatonism is obviously a historic and valid body of thought within classical paganism. But it wasn't the traditional religion of the common people, and I personally don't see Julian as the hero of traditional paganism. The division between Neoplatonism and early Christianity is not in my opinion an inseparable one.

[DanM]

Hey Zeke, I think Ursus is on to something here. Don't forget that Julian aped Christian and Jewish practices like charity for the poor in an attempt to counter their rising popularity.

 

Also, I think he tried to impose some of the religous hierarchy that was so effectively employed by the Christians. In short, he borrowed a lot from the Christians in terms of methods and organization so the fact that he opposed them through his support of paganism isn't really the same thing as saying he rejected all that was Christian. And like Ursus said, the early church borrowed a lot from non-Christian thought as well so its hard to say there is a clear line of seperation.

[Lex]

I actually just finished reading the chapters (19 and 22-24) in Gibbon

[Primus Pilus]

Gibbon's portrayal, written in the heart of western European Christianity is actually a bit stunning. For it not to be totally biased against Justinian is not only a commendation to Gibbon but to the character of Justinian as well. That he wasn't completely blasted always suprises me a little, even though Gibbon has always been considered a 'fair' historian. Gibbon's work, despite being written without the benefit of later archaeology (and some of the inherent problems as a result) is still a must read for student of Rome.