Julian The Apostate

[DanM]

As I said in my first post within this thread, I really think Julian the apostate could be a lot of fun as a character in a book.

 

You ever notice how few fictional books do a good job at creating a flawed, but sympathetic protagonist? A man whose greatness is not some absolute score to be measured but a magical combination of good qualities, bad qualities and circumstance. Its a shame, because the flaws can add emotional depth and humor to a story and do so very much to make the character more sympathetic. For me its a lot easier to emotionally invest in a character if he seems 3 deminsional and not just some artificially constructed plot device that fits neatly into a story outline.

[Cleopatra Aelia]

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

[Zeke]

Yes I think I should read it......

Zeke

[Onasander]

I'll finish looking for it later, but I know Gibbon's book is on the net, I've seen it in e-book form a couple years back.

 

http://www.his.com/~z/gibho1.html

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallofrome/

[Philhellene]

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

 

...

 

Constantius. however, demanded the unconditional surrender of the title of Caesar and of his position as governor of Gaul.

 

Constantius told him to be satisfied with the title of Caesar and to surrender of the title of Augustus (Ammianus Marcellinus. XX.9).

 

 

I am writing a book on Flavius Claudius Julianius the last Pagan Emperor of Rome.

 

He wasn`t actually "the last"... His nephew Procopius and Eugenius were pagans too, but they were ill-fated usurpers.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Who knows what would have happened if Julian had been emperor for many years? Though I disagree with his religious policy, I do think that he was an excellent emperor.

[Ursus]

My only comment: the "paganism" he was promoting was something of a fanatical flavor that wasn't so far from the Christianity he professed to dislike.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Although I'm glad that he did not resume outright paganism (in fact, I do believe that he invited a number of prominent Christians to his court, but they all refused), but his decision to not allow Christians to teach the classics was quite harmful, and helped to drive a further wedge between classical and Christian culture.

[Leguleius]

Although I'm glad that he did not resume outright paganism (in fact, I do believe that he invited a number of prominent Christians to his court, but they all refused), but his decision to not allow Christians to teach the classics was quite harmful, and helped to drive a further wedge between classical and Christian culture.

 

Yes, it was an unusual policy, which I suppose demonstrated his desire to cut Christians out of the mainstream of Roman life.

 

I'm interested to see that Gibbon says (chapter 23), "In all the cities of the Roman world the education of the youth was intrusted to masters of grammar and rhetoric, who were elected by the magistrates, maintained at the public expense, and distinguished by many lucrative and honourable privileges." Forgive my ignorance, but were there really public schools in every Roman city? It seems a very enlightened and modern concept.

 

Julian the Philosopher/Apostate is a fascinating character. His obvious military skill and confidence makes an intriguing contrast with his neo-platonic beliefs, humanity and apparently self-depricating nature.

 

If anyone hasn't seen it already there's an excellent note on him at Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate

 

And his humerous poem 'Misopogon' ('Beard hater') in which he pokes fun at himself (as a beardy philosopher) is online here:

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/julian-mispogon.html

 

Like Marcus Aurelius with a sense of humour What a shame for the Empire that he didn't reign longer or appoint a successor before his death.

 

 

Tom

Edited April 15, 2006 by Leguleius

[Virgil61]

Although I'm glad that he did not resume outright paganism (in fact, I do believe that he invited a number of prominent Christians to his court, but they all refused), but his decision to not allow Christians to teach the classics was quite harmful, and helped to drive a further wedge between classical and Christian culture.

 

Yes, it was an unusual policy, which I suppose demonstrated his desire to cut Christians out of the mainstream of Roman life.

 

I'm interested to see that Gibbon says (chapter 23), "In all the cities of the Roman world the education of the youth was intrusted to masters of grammar and rhetoric, who were elected by the magistrates, maintained at the public expense, and distinguished by many lucrative and honourable privileges." Forgive my ignorance, but were there really public schools in every Roman city? It seems a very enlightened and modern concept.

 

Julian the Philosopher/Apostate is a fascinating character. His obvious military skill and confidence makes an intriguing contrast with his neo-platonic beliefs, humanity and apparently self-depricating nature.

...

Like Marcus Aurelius with a sense of humour What a shame for the Empire that he didn't reign longer or appoint a successor before his death.

 

 

Years ago I read Gore Vidal's "Julian: A Novel". I remember it being quite vivid and well-written. Vidal takes some liberties, as he had to, but it captured the essence of the times very well.

[Lex]

What do you guys make of Julian's death?

Do you think he was killed by one of his own troops, namely one of the Christian troops. And do you think his death was organised by some of his Christian commanders who were plotting against him? He was killed by a Roman spear, though I know this isn't good enough evidence since an enemy soldier could have picked up the spear and used it.

 

In Persia, Julian wouldn't have needed to retreat if Procopius obeyed his orders and met up with Julians forces. Why didn't he obey the orders? Julian had given the Persians a thorough beating on the battlefield and they didn't stand a chance against the Romans. The problem was that Julian was relying on Procopius to bring supplies as well as troops but without the supplies they were forced to retreat since Julain couldn't risk waiting any longer.

 

The guides that Julian used where treacherous and led the Romans into an ambush that forced the Romans into a desperate retreat with the Persians following in close pursuit constantly harassing them. Gore Vidal mentions the possibility these guides might have been in league with some of the Roman commanders and therefore that some commanders were working with the Persians after Julian didn't accept their terms (though I doubt it). The reason being that they wanted to replace a Pagan emperor with a Christian one, so they arranged for him to be killed in the confusion of a skirmish.

 

And why did the commanders choose such an obscure figure such as Jovian to replace Julian?

Edited April 25, 2006 by Lex