Did Julian reach out to the Senate in Rome?

[Majorianus Invictus]

I ask this because many paint his reign as the last gasp of paganism. I know he often refrained from direct persecutions and killings of Christians, instead trying to use reason and the inconsistencies within their own gospels to defeat their arguments, but as I have looked at the period of Theodosius, it seems that there were still many Senators and people who wanted to preserve the old beliefs. Arbogast and Eugenius show that the movement was not finished.

 

So why did Julian not reach out to the very heart of Pagan Rome? Rome itself? Or did he?

 

Would it not have bolstered his cause to move the seat of the government back to Rome?

 

It seems to me (and I could be wrong), that the Pagan support should have been just as passionate in Julian's time, as it was during Theodosius. Yes, Theodosius was trying to destroy the old ways, but Julian was Emperor, and one would think he would tap into this, rather than ignore it. It seems he squandered an opportunity by ignoring Rome and the Senate. Anyways I am curious as to what the masses at UNRV think.

 

sincerely,

 

H. Majorianus Invictus

[Ursus]

So why did Julian not reach out to the very heart of Pagan Rome?

 

 

Because neither the Senate nor Rome were much more than historic symbols at that point in history...?

[Ludovicus]

By Julian's time Christianity was doing very well in most of the large population centers of the Empire. Paganism was withdrawing to the countryside.

Anyone who could sniff out power, Senators and the like, would have known for a while that Christianity was ascending. It's ability to provide a more democratic theory of justice and offer social mobility made it the clear winner. Top it all off with the new religion's ability to accommodate Plato and Aristotle, among other classical thinkers. Besides, not many really believed in the old Roman gods any more.

[barca]

... Christianity was ascending. It's ability to provide a more democratic theory of justice and offer social mobility made it the clear winner. Top it all off with the new religion's ability to accommodate Plato and Aristotle, among other classical thinkers. Besides, not many really believed in the old Roman gods any more.

 

How did Christianity provide a more democratic theory of justice and social mobility? Democracy originated with the pagan Greeks long before Christianity, and I know one could argue that it wasn't true democracy as we know today because slaves were not part of the process, but the Christian West didn't do anything to eliminate slavery until the 19th century. As for upward mobility, the pagan Romans provided a system of laws that encouraged free enterprise, and a somewhat capitalistic or competitive outlook, though not as overwhelmingly capitalistic as was seen later in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution. If anything Christianity's attitude of turning the other cheek and spirituality rather than materialism would be inconsistent with upward mobility.

 

I will agree with your other point that they found a way to accommodate Plato (St Augustine of Hippo) and Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas), but that was after Julian.

 

Many Greco-Roman scholars replaced their blief in the pagan gods with Greco-Roman philosophy (Epicurianism, Skepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism)

Stoicism is considered by many the basic philosophy of the pre-Christian ruling class in Rome. They didn't need a new religion for spiritual guidance. However the uneducated had little or no appreciation for their philosophy. Christianity began by converting the uneducated:

 

" Come to us ye who are sinners, ye who are fools or children, ye who are miserable, and ye shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. " Celsus

[The Roadie]

... Christianity was ascending. It's ability to provide a more democratic theory of justice and offer social mobility made it the clear winner. Top it all off with the new religion's ability to accommodate Plato and Aristotle, among other classical thinkers. Besides, not many really believed in the old Roman gods any more.

 

How did Christianity provide a more democratic theory of justice and social mobility? Democracy originated with the pagan Greeks long before Christianity, and I know one could argue that it wasn't true democracy as we know today because slaves were not part of the process, but the Christian West didn't do anything to eliminate slavery until the 19th century. As for upward mobility, the pagan Romans provided a system of laws that encouraged free enterprise, and a somewhat capitalistic or competitive outlook, though not as overwhelmingly capitalistic as was seen later in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution. If anything Christianity's attitude of turning the other cheek and spirituality rather than materialism would be inconsistent with upward mobility.

 

I will agree with your other point that they found a way to accommodate Plato (St Augustine of Hippo) and Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas), but that was after Julian.

 

Many Greco-Roman scholars replaced their blief in the pagan gods with Greco-Roman philosophy (Epicurianism, Skepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism)

Stoicism is considered by many the basic philosophy of the pre-Christian ruling class in Rome. They didn't need a new religion for spiritual guidance. However the uneducated had little or no appreciation for their philosophy. Christianity began by converting the uneducated:

 

" Come to us ye who are sinners, ye who are fools or children, ye who are miserable, and ye shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. " Celsus

 

If Julian's reign had been two decades or more, then we could have questioned why he didn't reach out to the pagans of Rome. We shouldn't forget that his reign was very short (361-363 AD). Had he not waged war against Persia or died when retreating, he could probably have rolled back the influence of Christianity - much like how the Tang Dynasty managed to stop Buddhism from taking over all of China.

 

Julian wasn't too popular with the nobility either, nor with the influential Diocletian bureaucracy, as he wanted to restore the privileges of the cities and towns in electing their own officials, as well as restoring the popular congresses to their traditional position, whereas the general trend during the fourth century was a gradual centralisation to Constantinople and Meidolanum, at the expense of the local economies. The progress towards feudalism had already started.

[barca]

If Julian's reign had been two decades or more, then we could have questioned why he didn't reach out to the pagans of Rome. We shouldn't forget that his reign was very short (361-363 AD).

 

And he actually did attempt to reach out:

 

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_a...eans_1_text.htm

 

Perhaps if his reign had been longer his works would have been taken more seriously.

[Majorianus Invictus]

Thanks guys, your replies have been helpful. I have always found it odd, that given his desire to reverse the pace of Christianity's growth and hold over Roman society, that he chose to go east and fight the Sassanids. Was the frontier in that much trouble? Or did he need a military victory to secure his reign?

[The Roadie]

Thanks guys, your replies have been helpful. I have always found it odd, that given his desire to reverse the pace of Christianity's growth and hold over Roman society, that he chose to go east and fight the Sassanids. Was the frontier in that much trouble? Or did he need a military victory to secure his reign?

 

Every new Roman Emperor who had secured his position and destroyed the compulsory wave of usurpers would then invade Persia. It was in order to win victories and thus achieve lasting support from the armies. There is a similarity with how new US presidents are often pursuing participation in foreign humanitarian missions (Reagan in Grenada, Bush I in Iraq, Clinton in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo) in order to show that they have balls.

[Ludovicus]

... Christianity was ascending. It's ability to provide a more democratic theory of justice and offer social mobility made it the clear winner. Top it all off with the new religion's ability to accommodate Plato and Aristotle, among other classical thinkers. Besides, not many really believed in the old Roman gods any more.

 

How did Christianity provide a more democratic theory of justice and social mobility? Democracy originated with the pagan Greeks long before Christianity, and I know one could argue that it wasn't true democracy as we know today because slaves were not part of the process, but the Christian West didn't do anything to eliminate slavery until the 19th century. As for upward mobility, the pagan Romans provided a system of laws that encouraged free enterprise, and a somewhat capitalistic or competitive outlook, though not as overwhelmingly capitalistic as was seen later in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution. If anything Christianity's attitude of turning the other cheek and spirituality rather than materialism would be inconsistent with upward mobility.

 

I will agree with your other point that they found a way to accommodate Plato (St Augustine of Hippo) and Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas), but that was after Julian.

 

Many Greco-Roman scholars replaced their blief in the pagan gods with Greco-Roman philosophy (Epicurianism, Skepticism, Cynicism, and Stoicism)

Stoicism is considered by many the basic philosophy of the pre-Christian ruling class in Rome. They didn't need a new religion for spiritual guidance. However the uneducated had little or no appreciation for their philosophy. Christianity began by converting the uneducated:

 

" Come to us ye who are sinners, ye who are fools or children, ye who are miserable, and ye shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven. " Celsus

 

I hope this will be helpful:

The letters of Paul preach the equality of all before God. Let's look at how these words were put into action. The Christian community at Rome, as elsewhere, was organized into the communitas, which included believers from different social classes, including slaves. At the Christian re-enactment of the Last Supper all drank from the common cup of sacramental wine. Beyond its ritual life the community as a whole took into its care widows, orphans, and the poor.

Already, in the third century the church of Rome maintained some eighteen hundred widows, orphans, and poor by its charity. The Latter Roman Empire, Cameron, Averil, pg. 126. This was radical wealth distribution.

 

Wealthy Christians underwrote many charitable works, often draining their fortunes while increasing their status and respect in the ever widening community of believers. This radical mixing of social classes and wealth distribution distinguishes Christian Rome from its pagan ancestor. Granted, pagan Romans with money would fund public works, but I don't recall them housing and caring for the outcasts and the unfortunate. As the secular state began to fall apart, the Roman church took over many of its duties and influence, eventually even the distribution of the grain dole.

 

Not only did Christian Romans continue classical studies, they clamored for schools of rhetoric. By the end of the 5th century Christian monks were setting up scriptoria to preserve classical texts, along with the Bible and stories of the martyrs.

 

While the secular state was still very much alive in Julian's time, it would have been difficult to not notice the aggressive building campaign of churches, shrines, and welfare centers that Christian emperors financed in the 300's. St John's Lateran, St. Peter's, St Paul's Shrine Outside the Walls, and St. Mary Major on the Esquiline Hill. Outside Rome, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, among others. These Christian construction projects reflected very well on the power of the new religion.

In regard to the elites of the Empire, Julian seems to have alienated potential pagan sympathizers with his return to the practice of animal sacrifices, really large ones.

Once openly pagan, Julian took delight in experimenting with any and every cult, and especially in blood sacrifices, which Christiana particularly condemned.

Even Ammianus remarks on his excesses, saying that he sacrificed so many animals that

[barca]

I hope this will be helpful:

The letters of Paul preach the equality of all before God. Let's look at how these words were put into action. The Christian community at Rome, as elsewhere, was organized into the communitas, which included believers from different social classes, including slaves. At the Christian re-enactment of the Last Supper all drank from the common cup of sacramental wine. Beyond its ritual life the community as a whole took into its care widows, orphans, and the poor.

Already, in the third century the church of Rome maintained some eighteen hundred widows, orphans, and poor by its charity. The Latter Roman Empire, Cameron, Averil, pg. 126. This was radical wealth distribution.

Wealthy Christians underwrote many charitable works, often draining their fortunes while increasing their status and respect in the ever widening community of believers. This radical mixing of social classes and wealth distribution distinguishes Christian Rome from its pagan ancestor. Granted, pagan Romans with money would fund public works, but I don't recall them housing and caring for the outcasts and the unfortunate. As the secular state began to fall apart, the Roman church took over many of its duties and influence, eventually even the distribution of the grain dole.

 

Equality before God is one thing. Equality in this world is another. One of the criticisms of the early Christians was that they turned away from this world, seeking salvation in the hereafter.

Therefore woldly goods were of no value, since the kingdom of heaven was all that really mattered.

 

The early Christians were quite a bit different from the Christians we see today. They were much more spiritual, practicing self abnegation and asceticism. They were following Christs' preachings:

 

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

 

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

 

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

 

If their communitas were present in todays world, they would be regarded as a bunch of communists going contrary to the tenets of capitalism, which encourages "enlightened self-interst" as Adam Smith put it.

 

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Adam Smith

 

Many modern "Christians" are right wing proponents of capitalism. They view social programs as wasteful. Not only do they take up tax money, but they encourage people to take handouts rather than incenting them to be successful through the competitive spirit of capitalism.

 

And I'm not necessarily agreeing with this viewpoint. I'm just pointing out that it is hard to reconcile the Christian vows of poverty and charity with the competitive nature of Capitalism.

Edited June 8, 2010 by barca

[barca]

In regard to my point about upper mobility that Christianity offered, as the Church grew in influence and institutional domination, it replaced civil society as the place in which to make one

[Majorianus Invictus]

These replies have truly been instructional and help me in my other thread that pertains to the barbarization of the "officer corp" of the Legions. If, and I am not trying to get off topic in my own thread, the rise of Christianity, as Ludovicus comments, "replaced civil society as the place in which to make one

[huiru]

Anyone who could sniff out power, Senators and the like, would have known for a while that Christianity was ascending. It's ability to provide a more democratic theory of justice and offer social mobility made it the clear winner. Top it all off with the new religion's ability to accommodate Plato and Aristotle, among other classical thinkers. Besides, not many really believed in the old Roman gods any more...

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Let's not forget that, by this time, the Senate had lost a lot of power and prestige, since the 3rd century emperors had made it clear that the Senate would not access large military commands anymore.

The Senate of Rome would stay a place where the old pagan culture would be kept the longest, so they were indeed a natural, traditionnal, ally for someone like Julien except that Julien's view of paganism was also quite new in it's own right. Also remember that not many senators knew Julian, who had spend precious little (if any) time in Rome.

[caldrail]

How did Christianity provide a more democratic theory of justice and social mobility? Democracy originated with the pagan Greeks long before Christianity, and I know one could argue that it wasn't true democracy as we know today because slaves were not part of the process, but the Christian West didn't do anything to eliminate slavery until the 19th century.

Whilst I agree broadly with your point, please be aware that there were anti-slavery intiatives in Medieval times. These were largely forgotten when exploration opened up new areas for colonisation and indigenous populations to exploit, sometimes aided by the locals themselves.