Rating: 
Summary: Splendid historical fiction with acid humor
Review: A novel about a Roman emperor whose rule was brief, Julian known as the Apostate was the nephew of Constantine. When he became the emperor he tried to bring back worship of the "old gods" and oust Christianity, a religion not favorably portrayed, though neither are the old ways of oracle and sacrifice. Three different views of the same historical events are presented by having three different narrators - Julian himself, and Libanius and Priscus both philosophers who knew him. The philosophers are carrying on a correspondence regarding Julian's autobiography sometime after his death at age 32.
Well written and researched, this book invites fascinating "what if.......?" speculation; just imagine if he had reigned longer and been successful what a totally different place Europe would have been.
Rating:
Summary: A fine Roman novel
Review: Before reading Julian, my only experience with Gore Vidal was his book Creation. Although that book was interesting, it ultimately failed to satisfy me, and so I delayed reading Julian for some time, despite my fascination with the topic of Roman history.
Julian is a much better book. The mood of the Empire, so late in its day, is neatly captured, with it's encumbered bureacracy, rigid ceremony, political strife, and growing religious fervor. Into this strangely recognizable world enters Julian, a second-born son with an interest in philosophy and the old religious rites, and a latent flair for leadership. Vidal evokes Julian's ambitions and fascinations concerning the "old gods" and the "new cult" of Christianity. Julian champions the former on the road to the throne, scorning the Galilean's followers while maneuvering in a world where the new religion was politically charged and dangerously assertive. The book centers on this debate, but digresses into more immediate problems such as the problem of imperial succession and barbarian incursions into the Empire. Julian is forced into the role of secular leader and military commander, where he displays repressed talents in war and at court. Although his ultimate ambitions are cut tragically short, Julian is consistently portrayed as a gifted leader with sympathetic goals. He is a hero of a world that was passing away, and his valiant attempt to bring the Golden Age of pagan Rome back is a vain yet noble struggle in the face of a changing world.
Vidal's personal touch is the commentary written "in the margins" by two philosophers, comparing their own experiences to Julian's first-person testimony. Their vanity, sarcasm, and selfish reflections on the apostate emperor lend levity and humanity to the novel, as well as filling in several controversial gaps that history leaves to us. Vidal's conjectures in these places are convincing and a little bone-chilling, and deftly expressed in the remarks between these two men.
Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with Julian and recommend it to anyone curious about the later Roman Empire and one of its most fascinating -- and most often misunderstood -- characters.
Rating:
Summary: Delightfully bitchy and irreverent as always ...
Review: Gore Vidal is very bitchy, as always, but so much fun.This is Vidal's chronicle of the fourth century of the Christian era. It was during this period that much of the theology and doctrine of what we now call "Christianity" emerged. Christianity is shown to be a synthesis of a number of cults that were thriving in antiquity, with some Greek philosophy thrown in, together with a measure of Roman administration and a little marketing genius from Paul of Tarsus. The emperor Julian, known to historians as "the Apostate," is portrayed sympathetically: He is less an enemy of the new cult, than a pluralist, who neither favored religion nor attacked it, but who was drawn to classical secular civilization and philosophy -- even as he saw these things crumbling all around him. Vidal is shrewd and observant in capturing the fawning and hypocrisy of diplomats and courtiers, the men on the make, drawn to the centers of power. (These observations were no doubt informed by Vidal's own experiences in the Kennedy White House -- which he visited often, until his forcible ejection by Robert Kennedy on one memorable occasion.) Vidal's prose is elegant and musical, he is a genuine wit, highly intelligent, polemical, merciless and entertaining. This work is a small gem, a masterpiece of historical fiction, from our greatest living essayist and one of our finest living American writers of any kind.
Rating:
Summary: A classic in the tradition if "I, Claudius"
Review: Gore Vidal's "Julian" is an engaging and thought-proviking treament of one of history's most important but, perhaps, least well-known characters -- the Roman emperor known as Julian "the Apostate." Ever controversial, Vidal paints a colorful portrait of this enigmatic figure's ill-fated crusade to stem the rising tide of Christianity in the fourth century A.D.
As another reviewer has pointed out, perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this book is that, after reading it, one cannot help but wonder -- what if that errant (or not) javelin hadn't struck Julian in June of 363? What if he'd lived on to reign for another 30 or 40 years? Would Christianity have been wiped out? Would the Islamic revolution have swept Europe in the coming centuries -- or would the dying Hellenic traditions persist for a while longer, eventually fading and leaving a highly secular Europe during the Middle Ages? Would Rome have fallen at all? All of this makes one realize how even the most earth-shaking aspects of our history can depend on such trivialities as the way a gust of wind carries a single spear across the battlefield on a fateful day in Persia.
Some reviewers have complained that this book is highly fictionalized. Vidal himself would certailny agree -- this is historical fiction in the tradition of Robert Graves' "I, Claudius", not history. (If anything, though, I would suggest that Vidal's writing style and talent for storytelling is superior to Graves'--he does an amazing job of making us sympathize for Julian, even when we can't entirely agree with his actions.) For a purely historical treatment of the same subject (which, incidentally, is short enough to read in an afternoon), I recommend G.W. Bowersock's "Julian the Apostate", also available on amazon.com.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: Julian the Apostate was emperor of Rome from 361-363 CE and the nephew of Constantine. Raised in a strict Christian environment (although of the Arian tradition), he formally announced his conversion to paganism in 361 and became a public enemy of Christianity.
That provides the background for Vidal's excellent historical novel (historical in the best sense in that Vidal tried to use as many actual events and recorded conversations as possible). Vidal is, of course, rather flagrant in rejecting Christianity himself, so it is easy to see why Julian's gradual rejection of what he viewed as a faith filled with contradictions both in belief and behavior would be appealing to Vidal.
The book is told from Julian's point of view as a form of autobiography with little side social commentaries of two of his friends. The debate between the supporters of Athanasius (who finally won out) and the Arians is well explained. In the fourth century (see also When Jesus Became God (BT216 .R83 1999), reviewed in an earlier issue, the debate over the divinity of Jesus was of huge consequence. The Arians (basing their case on John 14:25) believed in the doctrine of homoiousios: Jesus was a similar substance to God the father but created by him. The followers of Athanasius adopted that "pernicious doctrine" later codified in the Nicene Creed of homoousius (meaning that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same).
It was essential for Julian to pretend to be one of the Galileans, as Christians were called then, because it was the declared religion of Rome after Constantine. As a potential successor to the throne, he was subject to all sorts of plots and political machinations, and these dangers form much of the tension of the book, as Julian tries to remain alive posing as a student of philosophy with no interest in politics. Julian's childhood was that of a prince with all that entails, including constant supervision, little access to people besides his siblings, and strict regulation of behavior. Julian's cousin, the reigning emperor Constantius, fearing for his throne, systematically murdered those who might be a threat -- especially his relatives -- so Julian had to tread very carefully. Fortunately, Julian was needed to be the titular head of Gaul, so he was removed from Athens, married to Constantius's sister, Helena, and sent to barbarian Europe. Julian, whom the emperor suspected had no military prowess, surprised everyone with his skill in battle as well as administratively, even though his hands were often tied by Constantius's Florentius, who had a great deal of administrative control. Constantius's attempts to subdue the Persians was to prove his undoing, and when he demanded that virtually all of Julian's troops be sent to him - despite Julian's promise to the troops from Gaul that they would not have to serve outside the province - those troops rebelled and demanded that Julian be appointed Julian Augustus, i.e., Emperor of the West. Helena, by this time, even though she was sister to Constantius, sided with Julian, because she knew that her brother had murdered her two children because he feared them as threats to his throne. Before a civil could result Constantius died.
Julian's (Vidal's?) comments on power and the corrupting role of imperialism are as pertinent today as they might have been two centuries ago: " Wherever there is a throne, one may observe in rich detail every folly and wickedness of which man is capable, enameled with manners and gilded with hypocrisy." "I have often felt when studying history that not enough is made of those intermediaries who so often do the actual governing. . . As a result, factions within the court could form and reform, irrelevant to the nominal power. . . .On the throne of the world, any delusion can become fact." The corruption and greed become palpable in Vidal's words.
Vidal uses a triple narrative technique that intersperses Julian's "autobiography" with comments by two contemporaries, a philosopher and a rhetorician, whose views do not always coincide with Julian's, permitting Vidal to offer disparate views of events. Julian is ultimately portrayed as a pagan philosopher-leader struggling against the hypocrisy of the new Galilean religion and trying to recapture the glory of the lost Hellenistic past.
Julian used his military and imperial rights to revive paganism and subdue the upstart Christian cult, but was killed - Vidal suggests by one of his own men, perhaps at the direction of the bishops - during the war against the Persians.
Vidal has vividly captured the intense political maneuvering and danger of being in line to succeed to the throne. This is historical fiction at its nail-biting best.
Rating:
Summary: A Classic
Review: Julian the Apostate was emperor of Rome from 361-363 CE and the nephew of Constantine. Raised in a strict Christian environment (although of the Arian tradition), he formally announced his conversion to paganism in 361 and became a public enemy of Christianity.
That provides the background for Vidal's excellent historical novel (historical in the best sense in that Vidal tried to use as many actual events and recorded conversations as possible). Vidal is, of course, rather flagrant in rejecting Christianity himself, so it is easy to see why Julian's gradual rejection of what he viewed as a faith filled with contradictions both in belief and behavior would be appealing to Vidal.
The book is told from Julian's point of view as a form of autobiography with little side social commentaries of two of his friends. The debate between the supporters of Athanasius (who finally won out) and the Arians is well explained. In the fourth century (see also When Jesus Became God (BT216 .R83 1999), reviewed in an earlier issue, the debate over the divinity of Jesus was of huge consequence. The Arians (basing their case on John 14:25) believed in the doctrine of homoiousios: Jesus was a similar substance to God the father but created by him. The followers of Athanasius adopted that "pernicious doctrine" later codified in the Nicene Creed of homoousius (meaning that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same).
It was essential for Julian to pretend to be one of the Galileans, as Christians were called then, because it was the declared religion of Rome after Constantine. As a potential successor to the throne, he was subject to all sorts of plots and political machinations, and these dangers form much of the tension of the book, as Julian tries to remain alive posing as a student of philosophy with no interest in politics. Julian's childhood was that of a prince with all that entails, including constant supervision, little access to people besides his siblings, and strict regulation of behavior. Julian's cousin, the reigning emperor Constantius, fearing for his throne, systematically murdered those who might be a threat -- especially his relatives -- so Julian had to tread very carefully. Fortunately, Julian was needed to be the titular head of Gaul, so he was removed from Athens, married to Constantius's sister, Helena, and sent to barbarian Europe. Julian, whom the emperor suspected had no military prowess, surprised everyone with his skill in battle as well as administratively, even though his hands were often tied by Constantius's Florentius, who had a great deal of administrative control. Constantius's attempts to subdue the Persians was to prove his undoing, and when he demanded that virtually all of Julian's troops be sent to him - despite Julian's promise to the troops from Gaul that they would not have to serve outside the province - those troops rebelled and demanded that Julian be appointed Julian Augustus, i.e., Emperor of the West. Helena, by this time, even though she was sister to Constantius, sided with Julian, because she knew that her brother had murdered her two children because he feared them as threats to his throne. Before a civil could result Constantius died.
Julian's (Vidal's?) comments on power and the corrupting role of imperialism are as pertinent today as they might have been two centuries ago: " Wherever there is a throne, one may observe in rich detail every folly and wickedness of which man is capable, enameled with manners and gilded with hypocrisy." "I have often felt when studying history that not enough is made of those intermediaries who so often do the actual governing. . . As a result, factions within the court could form and reform, irrelevant to the nominal power. . . .On the throne of the world, any delusion can become fact." The corruption and greed become palpable in Vidal's words.
Vidal uses a triple narrative technique that intersperses Julian's "autobiography" with comments by two contemporaries, a philosopher and a rhetorician, whose views do not always coincide with Julian's, permitting Vidal to offer disparate views of events. Julian is ultimately portrayed as a pagan philosopher-leader struggling against the hypocrisy of the new Galilean religion and trying to recapture the glory of the lost Hellenistic past.
Julian used his military and imperial rights to revive paganism and subdue the upstart Christian cult, but was killed - Vidal suggests by one of his own men, perhaps at the direction of the bishops - during the war against the Persians.
Vidal has vividly captured the intense political maneuvering and danger of being in line to succeed to the throne. This is historical fiction at its nail-biting best.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most interesting Roman emperors
Review: Probably because of my pagan sympathies, this is one of my favorite books. Julian is, by far, one of the most interesting of all the Roman emperors, and this book is an excellent and creative interpretation of his life. If you are somewhat disillusioned by Christianity, this book may provide you with some insight into how Roman paganism was overturned by the Christians. I've read other biographies and historical accounts from this era, but Gore Vidal really brings this colorful emperor, and the time period, to life.
Rating:
Summary: Thought-provoking. One of my favorite reading experiences.
Review: Reading this book was one of the favorite reading experiences of my life. Vidal brings the world of the late Roman Empire to life through the letters of two writers and the journal of the pagan emperor Julian. The novel takes us from Julian's insecure childhood to his imprisoned adolescence on to his service as Caesar under his uncle and finally to his reign as Augustus himself. Along the way, we learn about the religous climate of the post-Constantinian empire and Julian's own reasons for bucking the new tradition in favor of the pagan gods. I was in the process of questioning my religous beliefs myself, and this book helped clear up some things. Julian's (or Vidal's) description of Christianity as a "death cult" was particularly stirring and effective. Close-minded Christians, and perhaps just Christians in general, will likely find this book offensive. But even still, the story and the rare window into ancient times that Vidal constructs make this book a must-read.
Rating:
Summary: APOSTATE
Review: The fourth century AD is a period I have never known much about. The first I ever heard about the emperor Julian the Apostate was actually the unflattering caricature by St Gregory Nazianzen, quoted here again in the novel. There is a plus-side and there is a minus-side to reading a historical novel from ignorance of the background, the plus-side being obviously that one is not distracted from appreciating it for what it is - creative writing. I feel sure the downside outweighs that, all the same. There is obviously considerable erudition behind this book, and if I ever improve my grasp of the background I would expect to find real historical insights, whatever the author may have adapted, removed or added. What is clear to me is that Vidal at least thinks as a genuine historian - his narrative is about the right things that should go into a historical analysis.
The novel is partly concerned with rehabilitating Julian, but it is about more than that, indeed about more than his life-story altogether. It is about early Christianity and the mind-sets that went with that. Julian was appalled by Christianity, and so, quite evidently, is Vidal. For him, early Christianity was a noxious perversion of human thought-processes. Christianity of this period tried to enforce beliefs, and would stop at nothing in the process. This should make us pause to ask - how can any belief be obligatory? Only our actions can be subject to our own will, let alone anyone else's, and holding a belief is not an action. There is a restricted sense in which it could be described as that, namely the sense in which `holding' means `propounding', as in a book or a lecture. In more normal usage to `hold' a belief is just to `have' a belief, and we either do or do not believe something - it's a state of affairs like having a headache, not a voluntary or enforceable act like holding a sword or holding a meeting. On top of that there is the question - what, if anything, did the doctrines the Christians were slaughtering one another over even mean? The doctrine of the Trinity was something to kill for, it seems. Even in my time the answer to rational questioning was that some `truths' (in whatever sense) were above reason but revealed by God, but of course one had to take someone's word for that. It was all of a piece with mortification of the flesh and repression of natural instincts, as Vidal quietly implies - any faculties, brain or body, that the Creator may have given us, presumably to use, were not only suspect but evil and those who saw the matter otherwise would be dealt with, as Julian himself was finally dealt with at the age of 32.
The book ends with a fascinating question left suspended, as much good history does. Julian was killed in his early prime, through treachery by one of his own officers, at Ctesiphon on the Tigris, the scene of new unresolved issues even as I write. He had made a serious error in that battle, the first of his brilliant military career, but all was not lost by any means. If he had lived out a natural lifespan, or even postponed being murdered for some years, would he have stopped Christianity in its tracks throughout the Roman empire? Vidal does not go into the question of its origin in any depth, but what he highlights clearly is that it was unique among religions in being new. The associated myths and legends that in other faiths had grown up gradually from the dawn of time were being strenuously created for Christianity at top speed and even more strenuously enforced. Julian and his author saw it as still having only shallow roots, but it was an idea whose time had come, it commanded fierce loyalty as Julian's own beliefs did not, and the odds must have been against him.
Julian's reign is well documented, not least by himself, and the story rests on his own accounts supplemented by those of two familiars. The narrative is accomplished, the writing style elegant and often ironic and witty as one would expect. However the reasons that led Vidal to put nearly five years of his life into writing about Julian in particular go far beyond the availability of copious source-material. There is nothing mysterious about these reasons - the author makes them abundantly clear. The real mystery, as he leaves me in no doubt either, is how human beings in the mass manage to think the way they seem to.
Rating:
Summary: The story of a true Philosopher King- and the eternal cycles
Review: This is one of the finest works of historical fiction that I have ever read. I find myself wondering why I waited so long to finally get to it. If Gore Vidal had written nothing else in his life, this volume would have been enough. It was the religious aspect of the novel that most interested me. This book addresses issues that are still quite controversial about the early days of the Christian Church in the Roman world. It's "triumph" over Hellenism was far more complicated and messier than most people realize. Indeed, Julian, as the last great champion of the old Gods (or rather the one ultimate God of Plato with His many aspects) comes across as the most spiritually sincere character in the book. It is refreshing to follow the thoughts of a sincerely good man whose only motivation for most of his life was to lead a good life in pursuit of Truth. Even when the titles of "Caesar" and then "Augustus", are forced upon him by men who realize his goodness, his first thought is always the welfare of those he now rules and never his own glory and power. Here, is one of the very few times the ideal of the Philosopher King was ever realized in the flesh. One comes to realize, through the words of the Emperor and his biographers, the true nature and value of both classical philosophy (love of wisdom) in it's many aspects, as well as the equal importance of mysticism, magic, and the Mysteries in the Roman world. You also see how the myth of the good Emperor who once saved the West, and who will one day return, far predates the time of Charlemagne, or even Arthur. Vidal has captured the transitional, turbulent world of the 4th century C.E. better than any other writer. You feel the corruption, greed, and decay that would ultimately spell the end of the empire in the next century. You find yourself mourning for the lost power and virtue that was once Rome's. It is obvious that Vidal has actually read Plato, Homer, Aurelius, Plotinus- unlike so many other writers that try to exploit this time period. Vidal understands the twilight of the empire; he understands what was lost- and why. It can be somewhat eerie reading the accounts of Julian's legions advancing through Mesopotamia. The accounts of his troops entering the opulent deserted palaces of the Great King, the relatively easy initial victories and defeat of the enemy army, the resulting constant hit-and-run warfare, the atrocities and cruelty of the enemy, the treacherous civilians, the miserable intense heat, the lack of support from home, the grumbling of the troops themselves, even the burning naphtha pools- you realise that all of this has happened before. Even Julian sees that it had happened over and over before his own time. It is proof of Aurelius' eternal cycles.
|
