Julian The Apostate

[Maladict]

Well I thought it was important for a ruler to share or atleast be tolerant to the most fastly growing faith at the time thats all.

 

Not when you have absolute power. Besides, emperors are human too. Read Julian's 'Mispogon', it's a fascinating insight into his persona.

[AEGYPTUS]

Ok where would you find that exactly?

[Pantagathus]

Ok where would you find that exactly?

Here you go: Julian's Mispogon (or "Beard-Hater")

[Segestan]

Julian surnamed the Apostate ;because he disavowed Christianity, was only 30 years old when taking the purple. He died in Persia while trying to preserve the provinces established by Diocletian , this at the ripe old age of 32, his short rein being only 18 months.... Just how much of this Anti-Julian rectoric can be true ? Very Little!. He was in fact very tolerant of other faiths , including Christianity and helped reduce taxes throughout the Empire by removing the many worthless administrators who had bought thier position and abused that power through the Christian domination of policies.. Constantine had placed the priesthood in all elements ofg Government . Not all who followed after christ were his moral representatives to say the least.

 

regards,

[Maladict]

Julian surnamed the Apostate ;because he disavowed Christianity, was only 30 years old when taking the purple. He died in Persia while trying to preserve the provinces established by Diocletian , this at the ripe old age of 32, his short rein being only 18 months....

 

Camping your armies under the walls of Ctesiphon hardly constitutes "trying to preserve the provinces established by Diocletian".

 

Just how much of this Anti-Julian rectoric can be true ? Very Little!.

He was in fact very tolerant of other faiths , including Christianity and helped reduce taxes throughout the Empire by removing the many worthless administrators who had bought thier position and abused that power through the Christian domination of policies..

 

It is because his reign was so short that we can only guess as to what his long term ambitions would have been.

Part of his 'enigma', for better or worse.

[CiceroD]

Julian certainly saw dangers to the classical world inherent in Christianity.

 

But other than his policies against the faith, Julian's character is set out very nicely by Gibbon in Decline and Fall

 

"The Virtues of Trajan appear more steady and natural, and the philosophy of Marcus (I assume Aurelius) is more simple and consistent. Yet Julian sustained adversity with firmness and prosperity with moderation. After an Interval of one hundred and fifty years from the death of Alexander Severus The Romans beheld an Emperor who made no distinction between his duties and his pleasures, who laboured to relieve the stress and revive the spirits of his subjects, and who endeavored always to connect authority with merit and happiness with virtue."

 

Sounds like the kind of Emperor that I'd want!

 

Gibbon maintains that Julian did not persecute in the same way that previous Emperors had. THat at that point there was no mass murders commited.

 

Now I dont believe as a Roman Historians one should "Always let your Gibbon be your Guide."

 

But this falls in line with his Philosophic bent

[Maladict]

Julian certainly saw dangers to the classical world inherent in Christianity.

 

But other than his policies against the faith, Julian's character is set out very nicely by Gibbon in Decline and Fall

 

"The Virtues of Trajan appear more steady and natural, and the philosophy of Marcus (I assume Aurelius) is more simple and consistent. Yet Julian sustained adversity with firmness and prosperity with moderation. After an Interval of one hundred and fifty years from the death of Alexander Severus The Romans beheld an Emperor who made no distinction between his duties and his pleasures, who laboured to relieve the stress and revive the spirits of his subjects, and who endeavored always to connect authority with merit and happiness with virtue."

 

Sounds like the kind of Emperor that I'd want!

 

Gibbon maintains that Julian did not persecute in the same way that previous Emperors had. THat at that point there was no mass murders commited.

 

Now I dont believe as a Roman Historians one should "Always let your Gibbon be your Guide."

 

But this falls in line with his Philosophic bent

 

 

I'd make that "never let Gibbon be your guide".

His literary achievement and the grand scope of his works are not in doubt, but his bigotry against Christianity really has to go. It's no wonder he loves a character like Julian, and therefore should not be taken as anything approaching an objective view. Gibbon never really has one.

[CiceroD]

I'd make that "never let Gibbon be your guide".

His literary achievement and the grand scope of his works are not in doubt, but his bigotry against Christianity really has to go. It's no wonder he loves a character like Julian, and therefore should not be taken as anything approaching an objective view. Gibbon never really has one.

 

Alas no one is entirely objective. But I've never seen any sources saying that Julian continued the previous persecution in the arena. He instead politically opressed them. I'd welcome anyone to prove the old English guy wrong.

[caldrail]

I'd make that "never let Gibbon be your guide".

His literary achievement and the grand scope of his works are not in doubt, but his bigotry against Christianity really has to go. It's no wonder he loves a character like Julian, and therefore should not be taken as anything approaching an objective view. Gibbon never really has one.

 

Christianity has a habit of claiming the moral high ground. Sadly it doesn't deserve it. For all the good works there's just as much sin committed in its name, no different from any other religion. One thing to bear in mind is that Gibbon lived at a time when christianity had a firm hold on society. I've never read Gibbon so I can't say whether I agree with him or not but for him to suggest that christianity was guilty is something of a brave step and I don't think we can easily discount his opinions. At a guess I would suggest that he's trying to find a simple and elegant solution to that historical puzzle and the nearest answer he can find is the church. Christianity influenced the fall of rome but I can't see it as being responsible for it.

[Maladict]

Alas no one is entirely objective. But I've never seen any sources saying that Julian continued the previous persecution in the arena. He instead politically opressed them. I'd welcome anyone to prove the old English guy wrong.

 

No, I don't think he did, but I also never said he did.

 

One thing to bear in mind is that Gibbon lived at a time when christianity had a firm hold on society. I've never read Gibbon so I can't say whether I agree with him or not but for him to suggest that christianity was guilty is something of a brave step and I don't think we can easily discount his opinions.

 

Gibbon lived at the time of the Enlightenment. If anything, it was becoming fashionable to reject the established Christian version of Roman history. He may have been one of the first, and probably the most prominent, but he was not alone and he did not really have anything to fear from the Church.

[CiceroD]

Let me say that many times science has been hindered by restrictions of the Church,

 

For example,

 

The official prohibition of anatomical cadavers.

 

The house arrest of Gallileo for his unholy (Earth revolves around the sun) theory.

 

Remember too that previously it was a Mortal sin not to believe in witchcraft. No wonder the people of the Enlightenment were looking to other sources.

 

Personally I respect Gibbon more because he does not take the dogmatic line.

Is there anything else we can find to prove Gibbon wrong?

beyond his renounciation of Christianity did Julian do anything Tyrannical or Despotic?

[AEGYPTUS]

I think it would be unfair to say the Church is the only persecutors of visionary through out the course of history. I think the public view on Philosophers in the early stages were not good for example Socrates executed for his beliefs held against the Sophist’s. The Churches views were widely held views in the times of Galileo. Julian did not to my knowledge do anything tyrannical bar his closure of Christian churches etc… He was a brilliant ruler who died before his time. He lead expeditions into Sassanid Persia as far as the walls of Ctesiphon!!

Edited December 17, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[Segestan]

Julian was subtilized by the New Platonic School. His gravest act towards the established Christian Institutions was the Law of 362 , which he was clearly only an front of it's bidding agents, was the forbidding Christians to teach the faculties of rhetoric and belleslettres.

In his attempt to show thw World that the Christian prophecies to be false; he in the year 362 , desirous of proving the fallacy of those prophecies , he determined to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem; the " horrible balls of fire breaking out near the foundations , rendered the place inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen".

His chief political concerns were the punishment of informers., who had been the scourge of the previous reign , and reforming the abuses of the court , in which were to be seen thousands of the most useless menials. He was thus enabled to at once reduce the taxes by a full one-fifth, and to indulge in greater magnificence in the state ceremonials. Superstitious to excess , he sacrificed on every occasion, and performed with scruulous anxiety the functions of sovereign pontiff.

 

regards,

[Maladict]

Let me say that many times science has been hindered by restrictions of the Church,

 

For example,

 

The official prohibition of anatomical cadavers.

 

The house arrest of Gallileo for his unholy (Earth revolves around the sun) theory.

 

Remember too that previously it was a Mortal sin not to believe in witchcraft. No wonder the people of the Enlightenment were looking to other sources.

 

Personally I respect Gibbon more because he does not take the dogmatic line.

 

Not sure why you bring up those examples. As I said, by the time of the Enlightenment people like Gibbon had very little to fear from the Church. They would be criticized, yes, but not hindered.

 

Is there anything else we can find to prove Gibbon wrong?

beyond his renounciation of Christianity did Julian do anything Tyrannical or Despotic?

 

I'm sure Gibbon made some more mistakes, everyone does when writing a huge work like his.

 

 

Julian did not to my knowledge do anything tyrannical bar his closure of Christian churches etc

[ModernMarvel]

One thing to remember. The once Pagan empire denounced Christianity as a depraved (Tacitus), anti-social cult that drank blood (numerous sources). Being from this history, Julian's family probably passed this story down...that's a LOT of indoctrination to overcome. Obviously, Julian faked it in the hope that his power would "make things right". Hey, it's by far not the worse things ever done for religion (The Jihad and Crusades come to mind). After all, this kind of thing still happens today. One religion or people group says horrible things about the other even with unequivocal evidence to the opposite. And we're all open-minded, modern people! Back then, things were alot worse, I'd imagine. Just something to think about.

 

Marv