What do you think?
Rate this book
يوليانوس
جلد اول: ميترا و صليب
477 pages
First published January 1, 1964
About the author
Gore Vidal
299 books1,783 followersWorks of American writer Eugene Luther Gore Vidal, noted for his cynical humor and his numerous accounts of society in decline, include the play
The Best Man
(1960) and the novel
Myra Breckinridge
(1968) .
People know his essays, screenplays, and Broadway.
They also knew his patrician manner, transatlantic accent, and witty aphorisms. Vidal came from a distinguished political lineage; his grandfather was the senator Thomas Gore, and he later became a relation (through marriage) to Jacqueline Kennedy.
Vidal, a longtime political critic, ran twice for political office. He was a lifelong isolationist Democrat. The Nation, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The New York Review of Books, and Esquire published his essays.
Essays and media appearances long criticized foreign policy. In addition, he from the 1980s onwards characterized the United States as a decaying empire. Additionally, he was known for his well publicized spats with such figures as Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Truman Capote.
They fell into distinct social and historical camps. Alongside his social, his best known historical include Julian, Burr, and Lincoln. His third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), outraged conservative critics as the first major feature of unambiguous homosexuality.
At the time of his death he was the last of a generation of American writers who had served during World War II, including J.D. Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer and Joseph Heller. Perhaps best remembered for his caustic wit, he referred to himself as a "gentleman bitch" and has been described as the 20th century's answer to Oscar Wilde
Also used the pseudonym Edgar Box.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Gore Vidal é um dos nomes centrais na história da literatura americana pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Nascido em 1925, em Nova Iorque, estudou na Academia de Phillips Exeter (Estado de New Hampshire). O seu primeiro romance, Williwaw (1946), era uma história da guerra claramente influenciada pelo estilo de Hemingway. Embora grande parte da sua obra tenha a ver com o século XX americano, Vidal debruçou-se várias vezes sobre épocas recuadas, como, por exemplo, em A Search for the King (1950), Juliano (1964) e Creation (1981).
Entre os seus temas de eleição está o mundo do cinema e, mais concretamente, os bastidores de Hollywood, que ele desmonta de forma satírica e implacável em títulos como Myra Breckinridge (1968), Myron (1975) e Duluth (1983).
Senhor de um estilo exuberante, multifacetado e sempre surpreendente, publicou, em 1995, a autobiografia Palimpsest: A Memoir. As obras 'O Instituto Smithsonian' e 'A Idade do Ouro' encontram-se traduzidas em português.
Neto do senador Thomas Gore, enteado do padrasto de Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, primo distante de Al Gore, Gore Vidal sempre se revelou um espelho crítico das grandezas e misérias dos EUA.
Faleceu a 31 de julho de 2012, aos 86 anos, na sua casa em Hollywood, vítima de pneumonia.
People know his essays, screenplays, and Broadway.
They also knew his patrician manner, transatlantic accent, and witty aphorisms. Vidal came from a distinguished political lineage; his grandfather was the senator Thomas Gore, and he later became a relation (through marriage) to Jacqueline Kennedy.
Vidal, a longtime political critic, ran twice for political office. He was a lifelong isolationist Democrat. The Nation, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The New York Review of Books, and Esquire published his essays.
Essays and media appearances long criticized foreign policy. In addition, he from the 1980s onwards characterized the United States as a decaying empire. Additionally, he was known for his well publicized spats with such figures as Norman Mailer, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Truman Capote.
They fell into distinct social and historical camps. Alongside his social, his best known historical include Julian, Burr, and Lincoln. His third novel, The City and the Pillar (1948), outraged conservative critics as the first major feature of unambiguous homosexuality.
At the time of his death he was the last of a generation of American writers who had served during World War II, including J.D. Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer and Joseph Heller. Perhaps best remembered for his caustic wit, he referred to himself as a "gentleman bitch" and has been described as the 20th century's answer to Oscar Wilde
Also used the pseudonym Edgar Box.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Gore Vidal é um dos nomes centrais na história da literatura americana pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Nascido em 1925, em Nova Iorque, estudou na Academia de Phillips Exeter (Estado de New Hampshire). O seu primeiro romance, Williwaw (1946), era uma história da guerra claramente influenciada pelo estilo de Hemingway. Embora grande parte da sua obra tenha a ver com o século XX americano, Vidal debruçou-se várias vezes sobre épocas recuadas, como, por exemplo, em A Search for the King (1950), Juliano (1964) e Creation (1981).
Entre os seus temas de eleição está o mundo do cinema e, mais concretamente, os bastidores de Hollywood, que ele desmonta de forma satírica e implacável em títulos como Myra Breckinridge (1968), Myron (1975) e Duluth (1983).
Senhor de um estilo exuberante, multifacetado e sempre surpreendente, publicou, em 1995, a autobiografia Palimpsest: A Memoir. As obras 'O Instituto Smithsonian' e 'A Idade do Ouro' encontram-se traduzidas em português.
Neto do senador Thomas Gore, enteado do padrasto de Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, primo distante de Al Gore, Gore Vidal sempre se revelou um espelho crítico das grandezas e misérias dos EUA.
Faleceu a 31 de julho de 2012, aos 86 anos, na sua casa em Hollywood, vítima de pneumonia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 610 reviews
December 26, 2018
”We are toys, and a divine child takes us up and puts us down, and breaks us when he chooses.”
Julian II
Julian was a child raised in the midst of turmoil. After the death of Constantine the Great in 337AD, there was a huge power vacuum in the Roman Empire, and Julian’s cousin Constantius II methodically eliminated all those who could potentially threaten his reign or those of his brothers. One of those executed was Julian’s father.
Julian and his brother Gallus were spared.
Their youth may have spared them, but in Julian’s later writings, he wrote that he believed that only at the urging of Empress Eusebia, by the thinnest of margins, were they saved. The very thing that nearly ended their lives, that dangle between their legs, also made them valuable to the family. Constantius II and his brothers were having difficulties spawning male children to assume the throne. If the Empire was to remain in family hands, then Gallus and Julian would be the only means with which to do so.
The boys are sequestered away under the tutelage of Bishop Eusebius in Nicomedia. It is never a bad thing to be out of sight and out of mind; after all, Constantius had already proven that he was not squeamish about getting family blood on his hands. As has been proven time and again, absolute power corrupts absolutely. ”First the tyrant plays harmless games: ...plays practical jokes; and no matter what he says and does, everyone laughs and flatters him, finds witty his most inane remarks. Then the small jokes begin to pall. One day he finds it amusing to rape another man’s wife, as the husband watches, or the husband as the wife looks on, or to torture them both, or to kill them. When the killing begins, the emperor is no longer a man but a beast, and we have had too many beasts already on the throne of the world.”
The boys live in constant, real fear that one day someone will arrive with a summons for them to see the Emperor. This directive can indicate two very different intentions. They could be receiving a promotion, or the more probable one is they are being set up to be executed. Any wild rumor can be the end of them. It would certainly give anyone a different perspective on life living under the constant threat of death. The older they become the more dangerous they become to Constantius.
Coin of Constantius Gallus, brother of Julian.
Gallus is sent for and made Caesar of the East in 351, which was a position representing a trial run to show his loyalty to Constantius and prove his ability to be the heir to the empire. Unfortunately, Julian’s brother proved unreliable. Gallus had shown signs of instability as a boy; power did not quell these tendencies, but merely enhanced their vulnerabilities. His head was separated from his body in 354.
And then there was one.
In 355, Julian is named Caesar. Being named Caesar is equivalent to being chased by angry, snarling German’s with ”Their dyed hair worn long, and hangs about the face like a lion’s mane,” down a long, dark alleyway where every door is locked, and all you can do is keep running to the end. Eventually, the worst you can imagine is probably going to happen.
Every shadow that falls across your doorway is a potential assassin. Herculean sphincter and bladder control would be imperative for anyone wanting to wear the purple.
Julian would have rather been a philosopher or even a philosopher priest if he must. Before being conscripted into the family business, he spent a short glorious time in Athens learning from the very best philosophers. Books were his solace for the rest of his life. ”As long as I could read, I was never entirely wretched.”
Coin of Constantius II.
One of the conditions that Constantius made for Julian to be named Caesar was that Julian had to marry his sister, Helena. When someone is setting you up on a date and they keep talking about your potential date’s sparkling personality, you know they are not one of the blessedly lovely people. Helena *shudder* hopefully had at least a great personality, because unfortunately *shudder* she looked TOO much like her father. ”Helena was a good woman but our moments of intimacy were rare, unsatisfactory, and somewhat pathetic, for I did want to please her. But it was never pleasant, making love to a bust of Constantine.”
Julian is remembered as the Apostate. He was such an advocate of Greek philosophy that he wanted to return the Empire to the Neoplatonic paganism. Constantine the Great, Julian’s uncle, was the first Roman Emperor to proclaim himself a Christian, but also the first to sign a decree that allowed tolerance for Christianity.
It is really remarkable how fast Christianity took over such a large part of the world. “No other religion ever considered it necessary to destroy others because they did not share their same beliefs.” I guess, if you are intent on eliminating the competition, growth happens exponentially. With convert or die being the only options, most people will waver in their firmest beliefs. Who is to say, after all, who you worship in the cathedral in your head?
Julian’s rise to power came relatively quickly after this mass conversion to Christianity, or Galileanism as Julian liked to refer to them because he didn’t feel they were very “Christian” in the way they conducted themselves. The point being, there were still a lot of people who might be professed Christians, but were actually Pagans in their hearts, so when Julian adopted Hellenism and brought back the old Gods along with the sacrificing of animals, there were numerous people who were happy that he brought back the old ways.
The Galileans were furious and began plotting his assassination. They are not alone; Julian’s enemies are as innumerable as a field of wheat.
I’ve read that part of the attraction of Christianity is the single God concept. Trying to keep a whole multitude of Gods straight and who is responsible for what was confusing and difficult. To worship one God under the Pagan system was to offend another, and sacrificing animals was frankly expensive for most people. It was a huge deal for Constantine to convert, and it was also a huge deal for Julian to bring back Hellenism. It sort of reminds me of the whiplash between Catholicism and Protestantism that happened in England in the 16th century.
Religion, unfortunately, has proven a very effective way to divide us.
Julian did not try to get rid of Christianity. He just wanted religious tolerance so that everyone could worship the way they wanted. He did remove a lot of Galileans from positions of power, which created a lot of adversity for him, but it was necessary because he needed people loyal to him. This would not be an abnormal thing, but when people feel they are being persecuted for religious reasons rather than political reasons, even though in this case the two were wrapped together, they take it much, much more personal.
Coin of Alexander the Great.
Julian was a surprisingly good military commander and soon conquered Gaul and put down several uprisings. Julian saw himself as a student of Alexander the Great and wished to experience the same level of success in war as his hero. He was in the midst of conquering Persia when he died. He was a commander who threw himself in the fray, which is honorable, but ultimately detrimental to the cause if he is taken or killed. Controversy swirls around his death, and Gore Vidal has some very distinct opinions of what he felt happened.
Vidal starts this book with a series of letters between two philosophers, Priscus and Libanius, who both knew Julian well. They are attempting to edit and prepare Julian’s journals for publication, which of course is still a hot potato in 380AD. I actually found myself chuckling several times as these philosophers betrayed their own sense of pride, petty jealousies, and false memories. Most of the story is told from “the discovered journals” of Julian. This blending of the journals with the uncertain memories of the philosophers is a remarkable achievement of historical fiction writing. Like his book Lincoln, Vidal brings the central characters to life in Julian and makes the reader feel the fear and uncertainty of Julian’s childhood. He places the reader on a camp stool in that tent in Persia as Julian gives his final commands. From beginning to end you are there.
I do wonder if Julian had lived longer if religious tolerance would have taken root and been more of a standard right of all people? Why do we care so much how someone worships or for that matter whom someone sleeps with and how can some of us believe that a man’s skin color can have anything to do with his character? It seems we always work so hard to discover how we are different instead of putting that same work into discovering what we have in common. Julian had the right ideas, but he would have had to set aside his lust for conquest and exchanged it for the much more difficult task of maintaining peace.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
Julian II
Julian was a child raised in the midst of turmoil. After the death of Constantine the Great in 337AD, there was a huge power vacuum in the Roman Empire, and Julian’s cousin Constantius II methodically eliminated all those who could potentially threaten his reign or those of his brothers. One of those executed was Julian’s father.
Julian and his brother Gallus were spared.
Their youth may have spared them, but in Julian’s later writings, he wrote that he believed that only at the urging of Empress Eusebia, by the thinnest of margins, were they saved. The very thing that nearly ended their lives, that dangle between their legs, also made them valuable to the family. Constantius II and his brothers were having difficulties spawning male children to assume the throne. If the Empire was to remain in family hands, then Gallus and Julian would be the only means with which to do so.
The boys are sequestered away under the tutelage of Bishop Eusebius in Nicomedia. It is never a bad thing to be out of sight and out of mind; after all, Constantius had already proven that he was not squeamish about getting family blood on his hands. As has been proven time and again, absolute power corrupts absolutely. ”First the tyrant plays harmless games: ...plays practical jokes; and no matter what he says and does, everyone laughs and flatters him, finds witty his most inane remarks. Then the small jokes begin to pall. One day he finds it amusing to rape another man’s wife, as the husband watches, or the husband as the wife looks on, or to torture them both, or to kill them. When the killing begins, the emperor is no longer a man but a beast, and we have had too many beasts already on the throne of the world.”
The boys live in constant, real fear that one day someone will arrive with a summons for them to see the Emperor. This directive can indicate two very different intentions. They could be receiving a promotion, or the more probable one is they are being set up to be executed. Any wild rumor can be the end of them. It would certainly give anyone a different perspective on life living under the constant threat of death. The older they become the more dangerous they become to Constantius.
Coin of Constantius Gallus, brother of Julian.
Gallus is sent for and made Caesar of the East in 351, which was a position representing a trial run to show his loyalty to Constantius and prove his ability to be the heir to the empire. Unfortunately, Julian’s brother proved unreliable. Gallus had shown signs of instability as a boy; power did not quell these tendencies, but merely enhanced their vulnerabilities. His head was separated from his body in 354.
And then there was one.
In 355, Julian is named Caesar. Being named Caesar is equivalent to being chased by angry, snarling German’s with ”Their dyed hair worn long, and hangs about the face like a lion’s mane,” down a long, dark alleyway where every door is locked, and all you can do is keep running to the end. Eventually, the worst you can imagine is probably going to happen.
Every shadow that falls across your doorway is a potential assassin. Herculean sphincter and bladder control would be imperative for anyone wanting to wear the purple.
Julian would have rather been a philosopher or even a philosopher priest if he must. Before being conscripted into the family business, he spent a short glorious time in Athens learning from the very best philosophers. Books were his solace for the rest of his life. ”As long as I could read, I was never entirely wretched.”
Coin of Constantius II.
One of the conditions that Constantius made for Julian to be named Caesar was that Julian had to marry his sister, Helena. When someone is setting you up on a date and they keep talking about your potential date’s sparkling personality, you know they are not one of the blessedly lovely people. Helena *shudder* hopefully had at least a great personality, because unfortunately *shudder* she looked TOO much like her father. ”Helena was a good woman but our moments of intimacy were rare, unsatisfactory, and somewhat pathetic, for I did want to please her. But it was never pleasant, making love to a bust of Constantine.”
Julian is remembered as the Apostate. He was such an advocate of Greek philosophy that he wanted to return the Empire to the Neoplatonic paganism. Constantine the Great, Julian’s uncle, was the first Roman Emperor to proclaim himself a Christian, but also the first to sign a decree that allowed tolerance for Christianity.
It is really remarkable how fast Christianity took over such a large part of the world. “No other religion ever considered it necessary to destroy others because they did not share their same beliefs.” I guess, if you are intent on eliminating the competition, growth happens exponentially. With convert or die being the only options, most people will waver in their firmest beliefs. Who is to say, after all, who you worship in the cathedral in your head?
Julian’s rise to power came relatively quickly after this mass conversion to Christianity, or Galileanism as Julian liked to refer to them because he didn’t feel they were very “Christian” in the way they conducted themselves. The point being, there were still a lot of people who might be professed Christians, but were actually Pagans in their hearts, so when Julian adopted Hellenism and brought back the old Gods along with the sacrificing of animals, there were numerous people who were happy that he brought back the old ways.
The Galileans were furious and began plotting his assassination. They are not alone; Julian’s enemies are as innumerable as a field of wheat.
I’ve read that part of the attraction of Christianity is the single God concept. Trying to keep a whole multitude of Gods straight and who is responsible for what was confusing and difficult. To worship one God under the Pagan system was to offend another, and sacrificing animals was frankly expensive for most people. It was a huge deal for Constantine to convert, and it was also a huge deal for Julian to bring back Hellenism. It sort of reminds me of the whiplash between Catholicism and Protestantism that happened in England in the 16th century.
Religion, unfortunately, has proven a very effective way to divide us.
Julian did not try to get rid of Christianity. He just wanted religious tolerance so that everyone could worship the way they wanted. He did remove a lot of Galileans from positions of power, which created a lot of adversity for him, but it was necessary because he needed people loyal to him. This would not be an abnormal thing, but when people feel they are being persecuted for religious reasons rather than political reasons, even though in this case the two were wrapped together, they take it much, much more personal.
Coin of Alexander the Great.
Julian was a surprisingly good military commander and soon conquered Gaul and put down several uprisings. Julian saw himself as a student of Alexander the Great and wished to experience the same level of success in war as his hero. He was in the midst of conquering Persia when he died. He was a commander who threw himself in the fray, which is honorable, but ultimately detrimental to the cause if he is taken or killed. Controversy swirls around his death, and Gore Vidal has some very distinct opinions of what he felt happened.
Vidal starts this book with a series of letters between two philosophers, Priscus and Libanius, who both knew Julian well. They are attempting to edit and prepare Julian’s journals for publication, which of course is still a hot potato in 380AD. I actually found myself chuckling several times as these philosophers betrayed their own sense of pride, petty jealousies, and false memories. Most of the story is told from “the discovered journals” of Julian. This blending of the journals with the uncertain memories of the philosophers is a remarkable achievement of historical fiction writing. Like his book Lincoln, Vidal brings the central characters to life in Julian and makes the reader feel the fear and uncertainty of Julian’s childhood. He places the reader on a camp stool in that tent in Persia as Julian gives his final commands. From beginning to end you are there.
I do wonder if Julian had lived longer if religious tolerance would have taken root and been more of a standard right of all people? Why do we care so much how someone worships or for that matter whom someone sleeps with and how can some of us believe that a man’s skin color can have anything to do with his character? It seems we always work so hard to discover how we are different instead of putting that same work into discovering what we have in common. Julian had the right ideas, but he would have had to set aside his lust for conquest and exchanged it for the much more difficult task of maintaining peace.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
October 21, 2023
I se atribuie împăratului Iulian spusa: Nenikekas Galilaie: M-ai învins, Galileanule! E doar o invenție creștină...
Și la a treia lectură, Iulian mi se pare un roman bun, chiar dacă entuziasmul meu a mai pălit. Gore Vidal a lucrat la roman 5 ani, s-a documentat minuțios și a realizat o biografie credibilă a împăratului. Sau o „bioficțiune” credibilă.
Foștii magiștri și consilieri ai lui Iulian, nobilii Libanius și Priscus, ar dori să-i publice memoriile. De la moartea împăratului (26 iunie 363) au trecut aproape 17 ani. Acțiunea se petrece în anul 380..
Libanius locuiește în Antiochia, Priscus în Atena. Încep un schimb de epistole. Priscus a sustras din cortul împăratului și a păstrat două texte însemnate: „autobiografia” lui Iulian Apostatul (331 - 363) și un jurnal de campanie. Cei doi nobili ironici și vicleni îi adnotează memoriile, fac, așadar, muncă editorială. Evenimentele sînt prezentate din trei puncte de vedere. Rezultă portretul unui bărbat foarte școlit, curajos, plin de superstiții și, mai cu seamă, nesăbuit. Firește, împăratul Theodosius nu aprobă publicarea manuscrisului.
Am reținut, cu acest prilej, două lucruri interesante. Ajuns în Constantinopol, Julian face baie. La un moment dat, îi stropește în glumă pe unchiul său, Iulian (aveau același nume), și pe medicul Oribasius. Prietenii lui rîd ca de o glumă foarte reușită. Iulian își dă seama subit de greșeală și meditează:
„Exact așa se nasc monștrii. Mai întîi, tiranul joacă jocuri inofensive, stropește senatorii în baie..., face glume grosolane; și indiferent ce zice și face, toată lumea rîde și-l laudă, considerîndu-i spirituale cele mai stupide remarci... Cînd începe crima, împăratul nu mai este om, ci bestie, și noi am avut deja prea multe bestii pe tronul lumii”.
Și al doilea: în ceea ce-i privește pe creștini, Iulian a mizat pe puterea de a-i convinge, nu pe forță: nu le-a dărîmat „criptele” (bisericile), nu i-a persecutat, nu le-a interzis adunările. Inspirîndu-se dintr-un text polemic al lui Porphyrios, Iulian a scris în greacă o carte cu titlul Împotriva galileenilor (păstrată doar fragmentar). Constată că Evangheliile se contrazic. Afirmă că e imposibil de crezut că un om care a murit a fost una dintre persoanele dumnezeirii. O astfel de carte savantă putea fi citită și discutată de cîțiva patricieni, în nici un caz de oamenii de rînd.
Iulian s-a purtat ca un mare naiv. Edictul lui din 4 februarie 362 proclama libertatea tuturor cultelor din imperiu. Nu favoriza nici o religie. Nu interzicea nici una. Revenirea la cultul lui Helios cerea timp, răbdare, perseverență. Din vina lui, împăratul n-a avut parte de ele. Principala eroare a lui Iulian a fost că nu a distrus rețeaua de episcopi foarte activă în Răsărit. Și asta l-a costat scump. În pofida sfatului lui Libanius, Iulian a pornit în fatala campanie din Persia. În împrejurări greu de elucidat, a căzut în luptă, străpuns de o lance. Priscus îl numește pe asasin. Dar asta e ficțiune...
Și mai interesant este că, după moartea lui Iulian, generalii au vrut să-l numească împărat pe Secundus Salutius, care nu era creștin. Salutius n-a acceptat propunerea: „Ce să-ți mai spun? Întrunirea din noaptea aceea a fost furtunoasă. Victor și Arintheus voiau un împărat din Răsărit. Nevitta și Dagalaif voiau unul din Apus. Toți au căzut de acord asupra lui Salutius. Dar el a refuzat”.
Pentru o clipă, istoria lumii a stat în cumpănă. N-are rost, totuși, să speculăm ce s-ar fi întîmplat dacă Salutius accepta...
P. S. În august 355, aflat la studii în Atena, tînărul Iulian o întîlnește pe Macrina, „o fată zveltă, cu ochi negri inteligenți și o gură tot atît de promptă în a zeflemisi cît și în a zîmbi”. Amîndoi sînt pasionați de filosofie. Se iubesc și dau prilejul unor bîrfe savuroase: „Cam pe vremea aceea circula o poveste nostimă, fără îndoială apocrifă. Iulian și Macrina au fost auziți în timp ce făceau dragoste. După cîte se pare, în tot timpul actului sexual au vorbit întruna. Se presupune că Macrina îi combătea pe pitagoreici, în timp ce Iulian vorbea despre puterile platonice, toate acestea înainte și în timpul orgasmului. Se potriveau”.
July 8, 2019
I love Roman history. Had Julian (the Apostate) been less conciliatory, the Christians would have remained a fringe sect. Uncompromising themselves, and ultimately triumphant, the Christians stamped out what Julian loved most: knowledge.
This book is written as letters between Libanius and Priscus, who discuss what to do with Julian's diary. Vidal's prose is sublime--always informing and entertaining, sometimes sharp and often funny. Historical fiction is rarely this good.
This book is written as letters between Libanius and Priscus, who discuss what to do with Julian's diary. Vidal's prose is sublime--always informing and entertaining, sometimes sharp and often funny. Historical fiction is rarely this good.
March 18, 2009
I don't know how or why anyone would let a thirteen year old withdraw this book from a public library but someone did, and it went a long way towards forming my mind. For better or worse.
Julian the Apostate was born just a little too late: the last Hellenist (pagan) in the family of Constantine, who a few years before Julian's birth had converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. The novel chronicles his unlikely rise to power and its inevitable conclusion. Not a plot spoiler----aren't a lot of practicing pagans around, are there? It takes the form of an exchange of letters and reminiscences between two Athenian philosophers who had known Julian as a young man, the letters transmitting portions of a hitherto-unknown memoir in Julian's own hand. The memoir, naturally, is the bulk of the novel.
I don't know how to put this otherwise: this book, more than any other I've read in the nearly forty years since, made the ancient world come alive. Having done that it led me to question seriously the historical antecedents of the religion in which I was being raised.
But forget that: this book is so good that I reread it every three to five years.
Oh---funny thing about reading a 1963 novel when you're thirteen. The descriptions of sex are so circumspect that no kid can imagine what's going on.
Julian the Apostate was born just a little too late: the last Hellenist (pagan) in the family of Constantine, who a few years before Julian's birth had converted the Roman Empire to Christianity. The novel chronicles his unlikely rise to power and its inevitable conclusion. Not a plot spoiler----aren't a lot of practicing pagans around, are there? It takes the form of an exchange of letters and reminiscences between two Athenian philosophers who had known Julian as a young man, the letters transmitting portions of a hitherto-unknown memoir in Julian's own hand. The memoir, naturally, is the bulk of the novel.
I don't know how to put this otherwise: this book, more than any other I've read in the nearly forty years since, made the ancient world come alive. Having done that it led me to question seriously the historical antecedents of the religion in which I was being raised.
But forget that: this book is so good that I reread it every three to five years.
Oh---funny thing about reading a 1963 novel when you're thirteen. The descriptions of sex are so circumspect that no kid can imagine what's going on.
October 17, 2024
Страхотен исторически роман! В него по изключително увлекателен начин се разказва за интересния и вълнуващ живот на император Юлиан и неговото запомнящо се управление. Той е последният владетел на Римската империя, който се е борил срещу навлизането на християнството, опитвайки се да възстанови античните вяра и култура. Гор Видал е описал правдоподобно и разбираемо историческите събития от средата на 4-ти век, а и въздействащо пресъздал противоречивата атмосфера на епохата.
„Какво чудесно нещо са книгите, как преминават през светове и векове, побеждавайки невежеството и накрая дори и безпощадното време!“
„Няма по-потискащо място от царски двор. Навсякъде, където има трон, човек може да наблюдава в най-големи подробности всички човешки суети и пороци, лакирани с добри обноски и тънко позлатени с лицемерие.“
„Нищо не се заличава така бързо в паметта на хората, както добрите ни дела.“
„Какво чудесно нещо са книгите, как преминават през светове и векове, побеждавайки невежеството и накрая дори и безпощадното време!“
„Няма по-потискащо място от царски двор. Навсякъде, където има трон, човек може да наблюдава в най-големи подробности всички човешки суети и пороци, лакирани с добри обноски и тънко позлатени с лицемерие.“
„Нищо не се заличава така бързо в паметта на хората, както добрите ни дела.“
October 16, 2020
“من دون استخدام المُخيلة التاريخية؛ حتى التاريخ التقليدي لا قيمةَ له”.
كان جوليان في السادسة من العمر عندما قام ابن عمه الإمبراطور قسطنطين بقتل والده وقتل جميع أفراد العائلة ما عداه وأخاه غالوس.
اتجه قسطنطين لدراسة الفلسفة والأديان، وكان هيليني أكثر منه مسيحي. بعد أن نُصّب أخاه غير الشقيق غالوس إمبراطورًا على الشرق، حكم أخاه بكل قسوة فتمّ استدعاءه إلى ميلانو لمقابلة الإمبراطور وفي الطريق تم قطع رأسه ورفعه على بوابات المدن. لاحقًا تم استدعاء جوليان إلى ميلانو، وقبل وصوله إلى ميلانو، في بلدة كومو تمّ سجنه لمدة ستة أشهر، ريثما يتم التباحث في شأنه في المجمّع المقدس. الغالبية العظمة اختارت أن يُعدَم مثل أخيه غاليوس. لكن الإمبراطورة يوسيبيا الزوجة الثانية للإمبراطور قسطنتيوس، على الرغم من أنها لم تكن عضوًا في المجمع، استطاعت أن تنشر وجهة نظرها أن جوليان لم يرتكب أي جريمة تدينه، وولاؤه لم يكن أبدًا موضع شك حقيقي. ولأنه آخر عضو في العائلة الإمبراطورية، فهو آخر عضو ذكر في العائلة الإمبراطورية. وإذا تمّ إعدامه وبالتالي مات الإمبراطور دون أن ينجب ذرية. فإن سلالة قسطنطين ستندثر وستشيع الفوضى الشاملة في الإمبراطورية. بذلك صارت الغلبة للإمبراطورة ليوسيبيا.
بعد مقابلة الإمبراطور لجوليان، صُدر أمر منه لجوليان لمتابعة دروسه في أثينا. تعرّف هناك على ماكرينا، وقامت بينهما علاقة حميمية أثمرت عن ولد، لم يعرف جوليان مطلقًا بابنه من ماكرينا.
بعدها صُدر أمر برجوع جوليان إلى ميلانو، ارتعب جوليان كالعادة إذ سيتم قتله كما قُتل أبيه وأخيه وبقية أسرتهِ. لكن حصل ما لم يخطر على البال. عين الإمبراطور قسطنطين جوليان قَيْصَر إلى أن يُرْزَق الإمبراطور بولد. فتمّ تنصيب جوليان قَيْصَر في تشرين الثاني من عام 355 وتمّ زواج جوليان من هيلينا أخت الإمبراطور والتي تكبره بعشرةِ أعوام.
لماذا كان يقيم الإمبراطور في ميلانو وليس في روما العاصمة؟ لأن جماهير مدينة روما متغطرسون بصورة شائنة، وتحمل ذاكرة طويلة للأباطرة الذين أطاحوا بهم.
كان الإمبراطور جوليان يحب الفلسفة والشعر وقراءة الكتب، كان حاكمًا مثقفًا حكيمًا وصبورًا ومحارب سياسي داهية. عندما استلم الحكم بعد موت الإمبراطور، أعلن الحرّية الدينية في العالم، يمكن لأي إنسان أن يعبد أيَّ إلهٍ بأيّ وسيلةٍ يختار. ولم تعد عبادة الجليليين أي المسيحية هي دين الدولة. كان يعتبر أن عيسى عليه السلام يهودي، وبولس هو من أسس الديانة المسيحية بعد رحيل عيسى ابن مريم. كان لا يؤمن بمعجزة خلق المسيح من أم دون أب. ولا يؤمن بالأقانيم الثلاثية. فأعاد بناء المعابد الوثنية لأنه كان يؤمن بالآلهة ميثرا إله الشمس والنور وزيوس وسيبيل وهومر وهرمس. كان يؤمن بالأحلام ويستشير العرّافين والعرّافات في تفسيرها. اضطهد المسيحيين وخاصة الرهبان.
كان حلمه أن يكون مثل الإسكندر الأكبر، فقاد جيشه لمحاربة الفُرس لكن ملك الفُرس استطاع خداعه وجرّه إلى أرض جدباء. اخترق رمحًا خاصرة الإمبراطور جوليان، واستقرّ في كبده على يد أحد الفرسان المسيحيين وهو في ساحة المعركة مع الفُرس. لم يستطع الجراحون أن يستخرجوا الرمح فنزف ومات في نفس المنطقة التي تنبأ بموتهِ فيها كلّ من ماكسيموس وسوسيباترا. تلك البقعة الصحراوية كان اسمها فريجيا.
يتضح من الرواية أن أغلب الملوك والأباطرة والقياصرة كانو يحكمون بقوّة الدين، سواءً كان الدين وثني أو سماوي. ويؤمنون بالكهانة وبالمنجمين، ويستشيرونهم في جميع أمورهم.
رواية تاريخية أدبية وسيرة ذاتية مفترضة للإمبراطور جوليان في القرن الرابع. تمّ السرد من قبل اثنين من معاصري الإمبراطور جوليان، من منظور الفيلسوف ليبانيوس وبريسكوس واللذان يقدمان ملاحظات لبعضهما البعض بعد صوت السارد الإمبراطور جوليان. الرواية ق�� تفي�� هواة قراءة التاريخ الروماني، والأديان والأساطير التي كانت منتشرة آنذاك.
اقتباسات
“إنّ الشيخوخةَ لا تُبقي لنا أيّ شيء، يا صديقي العزيز. إننا كالأشجار العتيقة، نموتُ بدْءًا من الرأس”.
“ما أروعَ الكتب؛ إنها تعبُرُ العوالمَ والعصور؛ قاهرةٌ الجهلَ ومن ثم، أخيرًا، الزمنَ القاسي نفسه”.
“إنّ حماقة الحادق هي أفدَح من حماقة الأبله”.
“إنَّ النفاقَ يصبحُ فضيلةٌ إذا ما وُجِدَ سببٌ وجيه”.
“يقولون أنْ تعرفَ نفسك يعني أنْ تعرفَ كل ما هو إنسانيّ. ولكن طبعًا لا أحد قادر على معرفة نفسه. وفي نهاية المطاف لا يمكنُ الاعتماد على أي شيءٍ إنسانيّ؛ إننا غرباء حتى أمام أنفسنا”.
“ثم هناك الفوضى السائدة بين كتاب اليهود وكتاب الناصريّ. فإله الأول يُفتَرَض أنْ يكون إله الثاني. ومع ذلك ففي الكتاب الثاني هو والد الناصريّ…”.
“أنا آريوسيّ لأني أجدُ من المستحيل أنْ أصدِّق أنَّ الله باختصار هو إنسانٌ أُعدِمَ بتهمة الخيانة. إنَّ يسوع كان نبيًا ـ هو ابنُ الله بصورةٍ غامضة ـ نعم، ولكنْ ليس الله الواحد”.
“لا أفشي سرًا عن ميثرا إذا أخبرتكَ أننا نحن أيضًا نشاركُ في عشاءٍ رمزي، ونتذكَّرُ كلمات النبي الفارسي زرادشت، الذي قال للذين يعبدون الرب الواحد ـ وميثرا، “إنَّ مَنْ يأكلُ جسدي ويشرب دمي سوف يتَّحدُ معي وأتَّحدُ معه، وسوف ينال الخلاص”. هذا الكلام قيلَ قبل مولد الناصري بستة قرون”.
“لا أحد يستطيع أن يُخبر شخصًا آخر ما هي الحقيقة. إنَّ الحقيقة موجودة حولنا. ولكن على كل إنسان أن يعثُرَ عليها بطريقته الخاصة. إنَّ أفلاطون جزءٌ من الحقيقة. وكذا هومر. وكذا قصة الإله اليهودي إذا ما استثنينا ادَّعاءاتها العدوانية. إنَّ الحقيقة توجد أينما يلمحِ الإنسانُ الألوهيّة”.
:إنَّ الحياة الإنسانية مأساوية: تنتهي بالألم وبالموت”.
“إنَّ خطاب الحقد غالبًا ما يكون أشدّ تأثيرًا حين يُطرَّز بلغةِ الحب”.
“إنني لا أحتاجُ أبدًا إلى أنْ أنظرَ إلى نفسي في المرآة؛ إنني أرى نفسي بوضوحٍ فائق في عيون الذين يُحيطون بي”.
“في الحقيقة، ليست هناك تقريبًا أي صلة بين ما يؤمنُ به الجليليون وما يُنادي به الناصري. وزيادة على ذلك، لا أرى في النص اليهودي ما يسمح بوجود شيءٍ فضيع كالإله الثلاثي. لقد كان اليهود موحدِّين. والجليليون ملحدون”.
“إنَّ حُكَّآم العالم من الطُغاة دائمًا يفترضون أنه إذا ظُنَّ أنَّ إنسانًا مُذنبٌ فيجب أن يكونَ مذنبًا إذ لماذا يجدُ نفسه خِلافَ ذلك في هذه الحالة. والآن إنَّ كلَّ طاغيةٍ يعلمُ أنَّ إنسانًا قد يكون بريئًا تمامًا ولكنَّ لديه أعداءً أقوياء (غالبًا ما يكون الطاغية نفسه هو رئيسهم)”.
“المرءَ لا يمكنه أنْ يتوصَّل إلى معرفةِ مخلوقٍ بشريٌ آخر معرفةً كاملة حتى وإنْ قاسَمَه السرير نفسه والحياة نفسها”.
“لا شيء يضيع بسرعة أكثر من تذكُّر العامة للعمل الصالح. ولهذا يُصرُّ العظماء على إقامة تماثيل تذكارية لهم وتسجيل إنجازاتهم بدقّة، لأنَّ الذين أنقذوهم لن يُشرّفوهم في الحياة ولا بعد الموت. على الأبطال أنْ يسهروا على شُهرتهم. فلا أحد غيرهم سيفعل ذلك”.
كان جوليان في السادسة من العمر عندما قام ابن عمه الإمبراطور قسطنطين بقتل والده وقتل جميع أفراد العائلة ما عداه وأخاه غالوس.
اتجه قسطنطين لدراسة الفلسفة والأديان، وكان هيليني أكثر منه مسيحي. بعد أن نُصّب أخاه غير الشقيق غالوس إمبراطورًا على الشرق، حكم أخاه بكل قسوة فتمّ استدعاءه إلى ميلانو لمقابلة الإمبراطور وفي الطريق تم قطع رأسه ورفعه على بوابات المدن. لاحقًا تم استدعاء جوليان إلى ميلانو، وقبل وصوله إلى ميلانو، في بلدة كومو تمّ سجنه لمدة ستة أشهر، ريثما يتم التباحث في شأنه في المجمّع المقدس. الغالبية العظمة اختارت أن يُعدَم مثل أخيه غاليوس. لكن الإمبراطورة يوسيبيا الزوجة الثانية للإمبراطور قسطنتيوس، على الرغم من أنها لم تكن عضوًا في المجمع، استطاعت أن تنشر وجهة نظرها أن جوليان لم يرتكب أي جريمة تدينه، وولاؤه لم يكن أبدًا موضع شك حقيقي. ولأنه آخر عضو في العائلة الإمبراطورية، فهو آخر عضو ذكر في العائلة الإمبراطورية. وإذا تمّ إعدامه وبالتالي مات الإمبراطور دون أن ينجب ذرية. فإن سلالة قسطنطين ستندثر وستشيع الفوضى الشاملة في الإمبراطورية. بذلك صارت الغلبة للإمبراطورة ليوسيبيا.
بعد مقابلة الإمبراطور لجوليان، صُدر أمر منه لجوليان لمتابعة دروسه في أثينا. تعرّف هناك على ماكرينا، وقامت بينهما علاقة حميمية أثمرت عن ولد، لم يعرف جوليان مطلقًا بابنه من ماكرينا.
بعدها صُدر أمر برجوع جوليان إلى ميلانو، ارتعب جوليان كالعادة إذ سيتم قتله كما قُتل أبيه وأخيه وبقية أسرتهِ. لكن حصل ما لم يخطر على البال. عين الإمبراطور قسطنطين جوليان قَيْصَر إلى أن يُرْزَق الإمبراطور بولد. فتمّ تنصيب جوليان قَيْصَر في تشرين الثاني من عام 355 وتمّ زواج جوليان من هيلينا أخت الإمبراطور والتي تكبره بعشرةِ أعوام.
لماذا كان يقيم الإمبراطور في ميلانو وليس في روما العاصمة؟ لأن جماهير مدينة روما متغطرسون بصورة شائنة، وتحمل ذاكرة طويلة للأباطرة الذين أطاحوا بهم.
كان الإمبراطور جوليان يحب الفلسفة والشعر وقراءة الكتب، كان حاكمًا مثقفًا حكيمًا وصبورًا ومحارب سياسي داهية. عندما استلم الحكم بعد موت الإمبراطور، أعلن الحرّية الدينية في العالم، يمكن لأي إنسان أن يعبد أيَّ إلهٍ بأيّ وسيلةٍ يختار. ولم تعد عبادة الجليليين أي المسيحية هي دين الدولة. كان يعتبر أن عيسى عليه السلام يهودي، وبولس هو من أسس الديانة المسيحية بعد رحيل عيسى ابن مريم. كان لا يؤمن بمعجزة خلق المسيح من أم دون أب. ولا يؤمن بالأقانيم الثلاثية. فأعاد بناء المعابد الوثنية لأنه كان يؤمن بالآلهة ميثرا إله الشمس والنور وزيوس وسيبيل وهومر وهرمس. كان يؤمن بالأحلام ويستشير العرّافين والعرّافات في تفسيرها. اضطهد المسيحيين وخاصة الرهبان.
كان حلمه أن يكون مثل الإسكندر الأكبر، فقاد جيشه لمحاربة الفُرس لكن ملك الفُرس استطاع خداعه وجرّه إلى أرض جدباء. اخترق رمحًا خاصرة الإمبراطور جوليان، واستقرّ في كبده على يد أحد الفرسان المسيحيين وهو في ساحة المعركة مع الفُرس. لم يستطع الجراحون أن يستخرجوا الرمح فنزف ومات في نفس المنطقة التي تنبأ بموتهِ فيها كلّ من ماكسيموس وسوسيباترا. تلك البقعة الصحراوية كان اسمها فريجيا.
يتضح من الرواية أن أغلب الملوك والأباطرة والقياصرة كانو يحكمون بقوّة الدين، سواءً كان الدين وثني أو سماوي. ويؤمنون بالكهانة وبالمنجمين، ويستشيرونهم في جميع أمورهم.
رواية تاريخية أدبية وسيرة ذاتية مفترضة للإمبراطور جوليان في القرن الرابع. تمّ السرد من قبل اثنين من معاصري الإمبراطور جوليان، من منظور الفيلسوف ليبانيوس وبريسكوس واللذان يقدمان ملاحظات لبعضهما البعض بعد صوت السارد الإمبراطور جوليان. الرواية ق�� تفي�� هواة قراءة التاريخ الروماني، والأديان والأساطير التي كانت منتشرة آنذاك.
اقتباسات
“إنّ الشيخوخةَ لا تُبقي لنا أيّ شيء، يا صديقي العزيز. إننا كالأشجار العتيقة، نموتُ بدْءًا من الرأس”.
“ما أروعَ الكتب؛ إنها تعبُرُ العوالمَ والعصور؛ قاهرةٌ الجهلَ ومن ثم، أخيرًا، الزمنَ القاسي نفسه”.
“إنّ حماقة الحادق هي أفدَح من حماقة الأبله”.
“إنَّ النفاقَ يصبحُ فضيلةٌ إذا ما وُجِدَ سببٌ وجيه”.
“يقولون أنْ تعرفَ نفسك يعني أنْ تعرفَ كل ما هو إنسانيّ. ولكن طبعًا لا أحد قادر على معرفة نفسه. وفي نهاية المطاف لا يمكنُ الاعتماد على أي شيءٍ إنسانيّ؛ إننا غرباء حتى أمام أنفسنا”.
“ثم هناك الفوضى السائدة بين كتاب اليهود وكتاب الناصريّ. فإله الأول يُفتَرَض أنْ يكون إله الثاني. ومع ذلك ففي الكتاب الثاني هو والد الناصريّ…”.
“أنا آريوسيّ لأني أجدُ من المستحيل أنْ أصدِّق أنَّ الله باختصار هو إنسانٌ أُعدِمَ بتهمة الخيانة. إنَّ يسوع كان نبيًا ـ هو ابنُ الله بصورةٍ غامضة ـ نعم، ولكنْ ليس الله الواحد”.
“لا أفشي سرًا عن ميثرا إذا أخبرتكَ أننا نحن أيضًا نشاركُ في عشاءٍ رمزي، ونتذكَّرُ كلمات النبي الفارسي زرادشت، الذي قال للذين يعبدون الرب الواحد ـ وميثرا، “إنَّ مَنْ يأكلُ جسدي ويشرب دمي سوف يتَّحدُ معي وأتَّحدُ معه، وسوف ينال الخلاص”. هذا الكلام قيلَ قبل مولد الناصري بستة قرون”.
“لا أحد يستطيع أن يُخبر شخصًا آخر ما هي الحقيقة. إنَّ الحقيقة موجودة حولنا. ولكن على كل إنسان أن يعثُرَ عليها بطريقته الخاصة. إنَّ أفلاطون جزءٌ من الحقيقة. وكذا هومر. وكذا قصة الإله اليهودي إذا ما استثنينا ادَّعاءاتها العدوانية. إنَّ الحقيقة توجد أينما يلمحِ الإنسانُ الألوهيّة”.
:إنَّ الحياة الإنسانية مأساوية: تنتهي بالألم وبالموت”.
“إنَّ خطاب الحقد غالبًا ما يكون أشدّ تأثيرًا حين يُطرَّز بلغةِ الحب”.
“إنني لا أحتاجُ أبدًا إلى أنْ أنظرَ إلى نفسي في المرآة؛ إنني أرى نفسي بوضوحٍ فائق في عيون الذين يُحيطون بي”.
“في الحقيقة، ليست هناك تقريبًا أي صلة بين ما يؤمنُ به الجليليون وما يُنادي به الناصري. وزيادة على ذلك، لا أرى في النص اليهودي ما يسمح بوجود شيءٍ فضيع كالإله الثلاثي. لقد كان اليهود موحدِّين. والجليليون ملحدون”.
“إنَّ حُكَّآم العالم من الطُغاة دائمًا يفترضون أنه إذا ظُنَّ أنَّ إنسانًا مُذنبٌ فيجب أن يكونَ مذنبًا إذ لماذا يجدُ نفسه خِلافَ ذلك في هذه الحالة. والآن إنَّ كلَّ طاغيةٍ يعلمُ أنَّ إنسانًا قد يكون بريئًا تمامًا ولكنَّ لديه أعداءً أقوياء (غالبًا ما يكون الطاغية نفسه هو رئيسهم)”.
“المرءَ لا يمكنه أنْ يتوصَّل إلى معرفةِ مخلوقٍ بشريٌ آخر معرفةً كاملة حتى وإنْ قاسَمَه السرير نفسه والحياة نفسها”.
“لا شيء يضيع بسرعة أكثر من تذكُّر العامة للعمل الصالح. ولهذا يُصرُّ العظماء على إقامة تماثيل تذكارية لهم وتسجيل إنجازاتهم بدقّة، لأنَّ الذين أنقذوهم لن يُشرّفوهم في الحياة ولا بعد الموت. على الأبطال أنْ يسهروا على شُهرتهم. فلا أحد غيرهم سيفعل ذلك”.
November 19, 2011
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, http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...) 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 war 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.
minor editing 11/19/11
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, http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...) 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 war 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.
minor editing 11/19/11
November 1, 2024
Having recently read Julian: Rome’s Last Pagan Emperor I revisited this novel. Following today’s review, I��m including my review from my first read.
________________
Gore Vidal takes you to a world where Christianity had been planted but not fully rooted. Julian’s ascent to the throne in 331CE was the last opportunity for the vast territory of the Roman Empire to turn back to (what is now called) paganism.
The book’s format is that of Julian’s diary along with the commentary of 2 scholars (Priscus & Libanius) who were Julian’s teacher/colleagues, one of whom is preparing a biography.
The scholars keep a focus on the issue of the times: the worthiness of the many gods (who made Rome great and should not be abandoned) vs the man who claimed to be a god. This debate permeates each phase of Julian’s life and most likely accounts for his death. With the two additional voices, you also get different perspectives on Julian, his relatives, his staff and his situation.
What makes the book are Vidal’s imagined episodes and conversations. The pagan rituals seem to be as they might have been as are Julian’s administration of government and overseeing tax collection, participating in “campus” life in Athens, running an army, conquering cities and observing the hypocrisy of those in, and those seeking, power.
As a youth Gore Vidal read classics to his blind grandfather, Thomas Gore, who was a Senator from Oklahoma. The young Gore also served as his guide in the Senate. From these early experiences Vidal clearly formed ideas about ancient life and the timeless practice of politics. This is undoubtedly gave him the understanding and vision to create Julian's world in a way that makes this book a masterpiece.
This is not a light read. I highly recommend it for readers of historical fiction who want more than a good story.
______________________
My previous review:
I didn't think Vidal's "Burr" could be topped, but this earlier novel of Vidal's is even more extraordinary.
Vidal creates a memoir by the Emperor Julian and presents it with the commentary of two friends. This novelization gives the reader a good understanding of the social and political dynamics of this often neglected period of history.
I expect that the scholarship is as accurate as the critics contend which makes this book not just fiction, but literature, and a major achievement for its author.
The book begins with Julian's sheltered childhood as the nephew of the Emperor, who is always in fear that the males in his bloodline would rise up against him. The uncle, claiming to be a Christian, has killed Julian's father and later his brother along with many more. Seeds of doubt of this new religion were planted in Julian's mind early on.
Some have commented that the book is hard on Christianity, but it shows how much the religion spread in the early days not just through missionary work, but also through politics and violence. It gives an equal number of swipes at the "old" religion. Julian's sacrifices are almost comedies (i.e. one bull had a damaged liver - an ominous sign, Julian spoke at the end of the ceremony negating its meaning so a healthy bull was brought in) as are Julian's looking for signs before battle.
For anyone interested in historical fiction this is an engrossing read.
________________
Gore Vidal takes you to a world where Christianity had been planted but not fully rooted. Julian’s ascent to the throne in 331CE was the last opportunity for the vast territory of the Roman Empire to turn back to (what is now called) paganism.
The book’s format is that of Julian’s diary along with the commentary of 2 scholars (Priscus & Libanius) who were Julian’s teacher/colleagues, one of whom is preparing a biography.
The scholars keep a focus on the issue of the times: the worthiness of the many gods (who made Rome great and should not be abandoned) vs the man who claimed to be a god. This debate permeates each phase of Julian’s life and most likely accounts for his death. With the two additional voices, you also get different perspectives on Julian, his relatives, his staff and his situation.
What makes the book are Vidal’s imagined episodes and conversations. The pagan rituals seem to be as they might have been as are Julian’s administration of government and overseeing tax collection, participating in “campus” life in Athens, running an army, conquering cities and observing the hypocrisy of those in, and those seeking, power.
As a youth Gore Vidal read classics to his blind grandfather, Thomas Gore, who was a Senator from Oklahoma. The young Gore also served as his guide in the Senate. From these early experiences Vidal clearly formed ideas about ancient life and the timeless practice of politics. This is undoubtedly gave him the understanding and vision to create Julian's world in a way that makes this book a masterpiece.
This is not a light read. I highly recommend it for readers of historical fiction who want more than a good story.
______________________
My previous review:
I didn't think Vidal's "Burr" could be topped, but this earlier novel of Vidal's is even more extraordinary.
Vidal creates a memoir by the Emperor Julian and presents it with the commentary of two friends. This novelization gives the reader a good understanding of the social and political dynamics of this often neglected period of history.
I expect that the scholarship is as accurate as the critics contend which makes this book not just fiction, but literature, and a major achievement for its author.
The book begins with Julian's sheltered childhood as the nephew of the Emperor, who is always in fear that the males in his bloodline would rise up against him. The uncle, claiming to be a Christian, has killed Julian's father and later his brother along with many more. Seeds of doubt of this new religion were planted in Julian's mind early on.
Some have commented that the book is hard on Christianity, but it shows how much the religion spread in the early days not just through missionary work, but also through politics and violence. It gives an equal number of swipes at the "old" religion. Julian's sacrifices are almost comedies (i.e. one bull had a damaged liver - an ominous sign, Julian spoke at the end of the ceremony negating its meaning so a healthy bull was brought in) as are Julian's looking for signs before battle.
For anyone interested in historical fiction this is an engrossing read.
August 23, 2020
En el top 10 de mi ranking de Novelas Históricas. Una obra maestra.
Este maestro de la Literatura, que es Gore Vidal, nos narra la vida de uno de los Emperadores más controvertidos de la historia del Imperio romano. Último superviviente de la dinastía constantiniana, junto con su primo Constancio II, constituye el último canto del cisne de la cultura pagana en el mundo antiguo, ya que tras su ascenso al trono en el 361 dc, estableció la libertad religiosa y favoreció abiertamente la vuelta a las tradiciones paganas, a la filosofía clásica, en detrimento del cristianismo. Por esto se ganó el apodo de Apóstata, por esto y porque de alguna forma renunció a su formación cristiana, apostatando de sus estudios religiosos a los que había sido obligado por su primo, durante los difíciles primeros 20 años de su vida, en los que solo sobrevivieron a las purgas su hermano Galo y él.
Es en estos últimos años de reclusión donde arranca la narración, cuando Constancio II empieza a contar con Galo y con él para la administración del Imperio, ya que eran sus únicos familiares vivos.
Tras la ejecución de Galo, es nombrado César de la parte Occidental, siempre vigilado, controlado por su primo el Emperador, que tiene miedo de que acabará levantándose contra el, cómo así ocurrió al final. Lo que no esperaba es que Juliano se revelará como un militar excepcional, que reorganizó la frontera del Rhin, que parecía irremediablemente pérdida ante el avance de los germanos. Los venció reiteradamente, incursionó en territorios que no habían visto un romano casi desde los tiempos de Germánico y finalmente se alzó contra su primo, cuando sus tropas lo nombraron Augusto en París en el 361. Este periodo de la parte final del siglo IV, constituye el último periodo de estabilidad de la frontera del Rhin hasta su derrumbe definitivo en el 410.
El enfrentamiento final entre los dos primos se evitó por la muerte de Constancio II y el ascenso al poder sobre todo el Imperio unificado de Juliano.
Su principado duro sólo dos años, pero muy intensos, llenos de controversia religiosa, la oposición de buena parte de la población que ya era abiertamente cristiana, de la administración civil y la educación, que también estaba en manos de cristianos y que no quería renunciar a sus privilegios y que finalizó con el desastre de la campaña contra el poderoso imperio persa, que se había revitalizando tras la sustitución de los partos por los neopersas. Desastre o traición? Nunca se sabrá, Juliano murió en usa escaramuza en su retirada de ctesifonte
Nunca se sabrá si fue un persa o un romano cristiano quien acabo con su vida, pero el golpe al ya tambaleante Imperio fue brutal....
Libro imprescindible para todos los amantes de la Novela Histórica.
Este maestro de la Literatura, que es Gore Vidal, nos narra la vida de uno de los Emperadores más controvertidos de la historia del Imperio romano. Último superviviente de la dinastía constantiniana, junto con su primo Constancio II, constituye el último canto del cisne de la cultura pagana en el mundo antiguo, ya que tras su ascenso al trono en el 361 dc, estableció la libertad religiosa y favoreció abiertamente la vuelta a las tradiciones paganas, a la filosofía clásica, en detrimento del cristianismo. Por esto se ganó el apodo de Apóstata, por esto y porque de alguna forma renunció a su formación cristiana, apostatando de sus estudios religiosos a los que había sido obligado por su primo, durante los difíciles primeros 20 años de su vida, en los que solo sobrevivieron a las purgas su hermano Galo y él.
Es en estos últimos años de reclusión donde arranca la narración, cuando Constancio II empieza a contar con Galo y con él para la administración del Imperio, ya que eran sus únicos familiares vivos.
Tras la ejecución de Galo, es nombrado César de la parte Occidental, siempre vigilado, controlado por su primo el Emperador, que tiene miedo de que acabará levantándose contra el, cómo así ocurrió al final. Lo que no esperaba es que Juliano se revelará como un militar excepcional, que reorganizó la frontera del Rhin, que parecía irremediablemente pérdida ante el avance de los germanos. Los venció reiteradamente, incursionó en territorios que no habían visto un romano casi desde los tiempos de Germánico y finalmente se alzó contra su primo, cuando sus tropas lo nombraron Augusto en París en el 361. Este periodo de la parte final del siglo IV, constituye el último periodo de estabilidad de la frontera del Rhin hasta su derrumbe definitivo en el 410.
El enfrentamiento final entre los dos primos se evitó por la muerte de Constancio II y el ascenso al poder sobre todo el Imperio unificado de Juliano.
Su principado duro sólo dos años, pero muy intensos, llenos de controversia religiosa, la oposición de buena parte de la población que ya era abiertamente cristiana, de la administración civil y la educación, que también estaba en manos de cristianos y que no quería renunciar a sus privilegios y que finalizó con el desastre de la campaña contra el poderoso imperio persa, que se había revitalizando tras la sustitución de los partos por los neopersas. Desastre o traición? Nunca se sabrá, Juliano murió en usa escaramuza en su retirada de ctesifonte
Nunca se sabrá si fue un persa o un romano cristiano quien acabo con su vida, pero el golpe al ya tambaleante Imperio fue brutal....
Libro imprescindible para todos los amantes de la Novela Histórica.
August 29, 2012
In my sad and maddening teenage years, I happened on my mother’s copy of the Oxford Book of British Verse and read through it with the doggedness I had at the time. One poem that hit me hard was Algernon Charles Swinburne’s Hymn to Proserpina, written in the voice of a Roman lamenting the passing of the old gods as Rome embraced Christianity. It begins with the line “Vicisti, Galilæe,” which, I am told, translates to “Thou hast conquered, Galilean,” and, I am told, was not said by the Emperor Julian as he lay dying. I’m older and less full of fire and gothic sentimentality these days, but some of Swinburne’s lines still give me shivers. Viz, these:
Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death.
Laurel is green for a season, and love is sweet for a day;
But love grows bitter with treason, and laurel outlives not May.
I read and re-read the poem, and it gave me vague, mythic notions about this Emperor who both seems progressive, as he attempted to create a Rome of religious pluralism, and deeply conservative in the William F. Buckley mode of standing athwart history and yelling “Stop!” Constantine’s nephew, who tried, and failed, to undo what he did. If he had not died two years into his reign, history might have been very different.
On the occasion of Gore Vidal’s death, I thought to read one of his books, and more or less randomly picked Julian. Very readable, and it made me like Julian in a less soppy way. At least as portrayed by Vidal, while he got his hands dirty, he strove hard to be a good man and a good Emperor.
I’m startled, though, that according to the Guardian obituary, it was a best seller. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/.... It is, among other things, a scathing critique of Christianity. Julian despises it, and Christians are portrayed in this text as despicable; manipulative, treacherous, small minded, and murderous. It is an elegy for the world that could have been, had Julian lived.
I am also struck that it was a best seller (I don’t know when or by what metric) because it was published the year after JFK was assassinated. Julian, in this text if not by history, dies by a spear thrust from his own bodyguard, the victim of a plot by the Christians in his immediate circle who made a pact he would not live to return from the war. I don’t want to stretch the analogy too far, but in both times, the world was disrupted, and not, by the death of leader. While Julian may not have been loved by all, he was loved by Libanius, one of the narrators. Perhaps people turned to this book to take solace in another man’s grief after the death of a beloved leader.
It ends with a powerful quote, spoken by Libanius, who has been informed that the current emperor will not allow him to publish a biography of Julian at this time. Libanius is old, and nearly blind, and near death. He tells us:
“I have been reading Plotinus all evening. He has the power to sooth me; and I find his sadness curiously comforting. Even when he writes: “Life here with the things of earth is a sinking, a defeat, a failure of the wing.” The wing has indeed failed. One sinks. Defeat is certain. Even as I write these lines, the lamp wick sputters to an end, and the pool of light in which I sit contracts. Soon the room will be dark. One has always feared that death would be like this. But what else is there? With Julian, the light went, and now nothing remains but to let the darkness come, and hope for a new sun and another day, born of time’s mystery and a man’s love of life.” (502).
I would have loved this book when I was a soppy teenager. If Julian had prevailed, we might never have had the dark ages, the Inquisition, the men who feared witches and burned women, the condemnation of Galileo. Now it fills me with a mild regret for the untimely death of a man who might have built a better world.
Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean; the world has grown grey from thy breath;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fullness of death.
Laurel is green for a season, and love is sweet for a day;
But love grows bitter with treason, and laurel outlives not May.
I read and re-read the poem, and it gave me vague, mythic notions about this Emperor who both seems progressive, as he attempted to create a Rome of religious pluralism, and deeply conservative in the William F. Buckley mode of standing athwart history and yelling “Stop!” Constantine’s nephew, who tried, and failed, to undo what he did. If he had not died two years into his reign, history might have been very different.
On the occasion of Gore Vidal’s death, I thought to read one of his books, and more or less randomly picked Julian. Very readable, and it made me like Julian in a less soppy way. At least as portrayed by Vidal, while he got his hands dirty, he strove hard to be a good man and a good Emperor.
I’m startled, though, that according to the Guardian obituary, it was a best seller. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/.... It is, among other things, a scathing critique of Christianity. Julian despises it, and Christians are portrayed in this text as despicable; manipulative, treacherous, small minded, and murderous. It is an elegy for the world that could have been, had Julian lived.
I am also struck that it was a best seller (I don’t know when or by what metric) because it was published the year after JFK was assassinated. Julian, in this text if not by history, dies by a spear thrust from his own bodyguard, the victim of a plot by the Christians in his immediate circle who made a pact he would not live to return from the war. I don’t want to stretch the analogy too far, but in both times, the world was disrupted, and not, by the death of leader. While Julian may not have been loved by all, he was loved by Libanius, one of the narrators. Perhaps people turned to this book to take solace in another man’s grief after the death of a beloved leader.
It ends with a powerful quote, spoken by Libanius, who has been informed that the current emperor will not allow him to publish a biography of Julian at this time. Libanius is old, and nearly blind, and near death. He tells us:
“I have been reading Plotinus all evening. He has the power to sooth me; and I find his sadness curiously comforting. Even when he writes: “Life here with the things of earth is a sinking, a defeat, a failure of the wing.” The wing has indeed failed. One sinks. Defeat is certain. Even as I write these lines, the lamp wick sputters to an end, and the pool of light in which I sit contracts. Soon the room will be dark. One has always feared that death would be like this. But what else is there? With Julian, the light went, and now nothing remains but to let the darkness come, and hope for a new sun and another day, born of time’s mystery and a man’s love of life.” (502).
I would have loved this book when I was a soppy teenager. If Julian had prevailed, we might never have had the dark ages, the Inquisition, the men who feared witches and burned women, the condemnation of Galileo. Now it fills me with a mild regret for the untimely death of a man who might have built a better world.
September 14, 2021
Gore Vidal covers one of my favorite Emperors- Flavius Claudius Julianus (known to Christians as Julian the Apostate), who reigned from 360 to 363 C.E. Julian was the last non-Christian Emperor and tried to bring back the Hellenistic religion. A scholar, a soldier, a religious man, and a philosopher all wrapped up in the Purple of the Emperor. A truly fascinating individual and one, had he lived longer, might have changed the course of religion in the world.
Vidal's novel tells the story of Julian via the transmission of his private journals, going from Priscus to Libanus (both confidants of Julian) and the reading of these journals is the "story". The rest of the novel is then presented as the manuscript of Julian in its original form including instructions to the eventual editor and publisher. The marginal notes of Priscus are incorporated into Julian's narrative where he feels fit to comment on or expand certain parts of the narrative. These comments are then often followed by the comments of Libanius on both the narrative and the comments of Priscus. Frequently they offer a different and sometimes contradictory hindsight interpretation of events and people than Julian expresses in his manuscript.
It is this back and forth, jumping between Julian's memoirs and the relative interpretation by either Priscus or Libanus that sometimes seems to inhibit the flow of the story. I realize this was the way it was set up, so that the journal could be published, but it does make the flow of the story a wee bit jarring.
Nonetheless, this is an excellent novel. Full of interesting concepts and a view of Christianity that will likely bother most Christians, who tend to be rather ignorant of the true origins of their religion. The points Julian makes about the contradictions and the sheer amount of rituals, forms, concepts that the Christians stole in order to incorporate common traditions (three wise men, a supreme being, good/evil, resurrection, angels, demons, Dec 25th, etc..etc.) so that Christianity would grow by appealing to a common shared mythological base. Even his points about Jesus being a Jew and spreading a religion that was supposed to be a reformed version of Judaism, instead was coopted by his followers and morphed into something else- Christianity. Which, BTW, has little in common with modern Christianity. All the inconsistencies and differing origins were neatly "dealt with" by the Council of Nicaea (the Nicene Creed) in 325 AD. There were other councils in later ages that made further "edits" but, by then, Christianity had become the dominant religion in the successors of the Roman Empire.
The novel tells Julian's story from an early age, when he and his brother Gallus are indirectly involved in Imperial politics, when their father, the half-brother of Emperor Constantine, is put to death by the new Emperor, Julian's cousin, Constantinus II. Yet, Gallus and Julian are allowed to live. Gallus is groomed, potentially, to be Caesar, while Julian was to be a Christian Priest.
In time, Gallus will be killed for his cruelty, thus leaving Julian to become Caesar. Upon the death of Constantinus, Julian becomes Augustus and tried to reinstate the Hellenistic religions. His attack on the Persian Empire is one that will eventually end up in his demise (or assassination?).
A brilliant book about a brilliant man. It would have been a 5 star, but for the chain of the story flow being broken by the intermittent side quotes by Priscus and Libanus. This will have been my second Gore Vidal book and, so far, they have all been well worth my time. Anyone with an interest in Julian, or just those who enjoy a well-written Historical fiction novel will enjoy this one.
Vidal's novel tells the story of Julian via the transmission of his private journals, going from Priscus to Libanus (both confidants of Julian) and the reading of these journals is the "story". The rest of the novel is then presented as the manuscript of Julian in its original form including instructions to the eventual editor and publisher. The marginal notes of Priscus are incorporated into Julian's narrative where he feels fit to comment on or expand certain parts of the narrative. These comments are then often followed by the comments of Libanius on both the narrative and the comments of Priscus. Frequently they offer a different and sometimes contradictory hindsight interpretation of events and people than Julian expresses in his manuscript.
It is this back and forth, jumping between Julian's memoirs and the relative interpretation by either Priscus or Libanus that sometimes seems to inhibit the flow of the story. I realize this was the way it was set up, so that the journal could be published, but it does make the flow of the story a wee bit jarring.
Nonetheless, this is an excellent novel. Full of interesting concepts and a view of Christianity that will likely bother most Christians, who tend to be rather ignorant of the true origins of their religion. The points Julian makes about the contradictions and the sheer amount of rituals, forms, concepts that the Christians stole in order to incorporate common traditions (three wise men, a supreme being, good/evil, resurrection, angels, demons, Dec 25th, etc..etc.) so that Christianity would grow by appealing to a common shared mythological base. Even his points about Jesus being a Jew and spreading a religion that was supposed to be a reformed version of Judaism, instead was coopted by his followers and morphed into something else- Christianity. Which, BTW, has little in common with modern Christianity. All the inconsistencies and differing origins were neatly "dealt with" by the Council of Nicaea (the Nicene Creed) in 325 AD. There were other councils in later ages that made further "edits" but, by then, Christianity had become the dominant religion in the successors of the Roman Empire.
The novel tells Julian's story from an early age, when he and his brother Gallus are indirectly involved in Imperial politics, when their father, the half-brother of Emperor Constantine, is put to death by the new Emperor, Julian's cousin, Constantinus II. Yet, Gallus and Julian are allowed to live. Gallus is groomed, potentially, to be Caesar, while Julian was to be a Christian Priest.
In time, Gallus will be killed for his cruelty, thus leaving Julian to become Caesar. Upon the death of Constantinus, Julian becomes Augustus and tried to reinstate the Hellenistic religions. His attack on the Persian Empire is one that will eventually end up in his demise (or assassination?).
A brilliant book about a brilliant man. It would have been a 5 star, but for the chain of the story flow being broken by the intermittent side quotes by Priscus and Libanus. This will have been my second Gore Vidal book and, so far, they have all been well worth my time. Anyone with an interest in Julian, or just those who enjoy a well-written Historical fiction novel will enjoy this one.
October 13, 2024
4 febbraio 362. L'imperatore Giuliano Augusto ribalta le decisioni dello zio Costantino che aveva sancito il primato della religione cristiana all'interno dell'Impero. Il nipote proclama in antitesi, la liberta' di culto in ossequio alla migliore tradizione di Roma. Questa data e l'atto sono sconosciuti ai piu' e Giuliano e' stato condannato alla damnatio memoriae dai cristiani vittoriosi (ribattezzato con lo spegiativo di Apostata), gli stessi cristiani che fin dagli albori della loro storia si sono adoperati per l'eliminazione fisica dei dissidenti e la cancellazione di ogni pensiero ecclettico. Vidal riesce in questo splendido romanzo a delineare un personaggio affascinante e controverso che si muove in un periodo storico fondamentale. Giuliano muore in battaglia poco piu' che trentenne ucciso a tradimento, probabilmente da una congiura cristiana, mentre il suo tentativo utopico-reazionario di ripristinare gli antichi culti imperiali, anacronistici quanto innocui, e' al massimo dello sforzo. E' un modo che crolla, di piu', e' una visione della vita che scompare. La nuova ideologia religiosa cristiana comincia a opprimere gli uomini con la sua visione mortifera dell'esistenza, compensata da uma presunta ricompensa ultraterrrena. E' la religione unica che si fa stato. L'impossibilita' del dissenso, la laicita' negata ma anche in definitiva la negazione di una possibile storiografia attendibile sono i temi svolti dall'autore nella costruzione di un libro veramente gustoso e malinconico. L'elegante ironia non riesce infatti a nascondere la triste constatazione di quanto male possa fare a se stesso l'uomo, tristezza appena addolcita dalla consapevolezza che nessun costrutto umano dura per sempre; religioni comprese.
November 25, 2018
“No one can ever love us quite so much as we love ourselves.”
Attributed to Julian by Gore Vidal.
Julian is a well crafted historical fictional soliloquy written by Gore Vidal in 1964. It is some five hundred pages in length but moves along quickly. Covering the thirty-two year life of the last of the great Roman emperors, the story includes palace intrigue, a great deal of history, fascinating war campaigns and then ultimate betrayal. Vidal’s tone is somewhat subdued in the book perhaps because there are enough historically dramatic events such that Vidal didn’t feel the need to oversell. There is also another narrator in the presence of Priscus, an actual historian of the 5th century, who does some minor narrating to correct Julian’s errant facts and begin the story when Julian is young and wrap it up after he dies.
Julian’s reign as Roman Emperor (AD 361 - AD 363) was significant in many ways but was largely so because he came so near the end of the one thousand year reign of the Roman Empire. Julian was known to posterity as Julian the Apostate, a boy raised as a Christian who renounced Christianity early in life. He was considered the last pagan Emperor, even though that sobriquet is not entirely accurate.
Julian was also a noted philosopher and eventual military leader who wrote several books in his young life. ‘Against the Galileans’, perhaps his most famous writing, is a long essay dissecting the origins and inconsistencies of Christianity, even to a large degree defending the logical nature of Judaism although he was not a believer of Judaism himself. In this essay he asserted that Jesus Christ as the son of God is as much a myth as the Greek gods. The writings of Julian and the nearly contemporary writings of Theodoret in the 5th century AD are where Vidal drew much of his inspiration.
***** This may be a spoiler for some *****
The novel itself starts out when Julian and his older brother Gallus are young boys. Their mother had died giving birth to Julian. We learn that Gallus is a bully through a number of episodes but amidst the resentment there is still a brotherly bond there. A few years later, while acting as the emperor’s consul, their father, is assassinated by the Roman Emperor Constantius II. Constantius II also happens to be Gallus and Julian’s older cousin. From this moment in the novel the boys are now orphans. They are looked after by their cousin and given the best education, the boys are split up and their private instruction and living arrangements shuffle between palaces in Byzantium and Greece.
While being educated the boys are also routinely spied upon by the eunuchs of which Constantius is fond of relying on. Vidal masterfully creates the aura of palace intrigue through several eunuchs. The Roman Empire is so large and there often many Caesars needed to rule, fight rebellions, pacify the populace and bring in tax revenue for the Emperor. Thus this need for loyal Caesars is why Constantius wants to educate and have the boys prosper despite having killed their father. To ensure that they remain loyal, he needs his spies.
So Julian learns to rely almost solely on himself and keeps a low profile and does not espouse much in his writings or criticize the Emperor within earshot. This would only give his cousin the justification to assassinate him. Julian studies religion and philosophy and by his teenage years has already given up on the idea of Christianity. Gallus is more outspoken in his opinions but is more focused on becoming a military leader.
Constantius eventually elevates Gallus to Caesar in the East when he is twenty-five. He is needed in the East to quash rebellions in Serbia and elsewhere in Byzantium and persecute rebellious Jews. Ruling is dangerously difficult for Gallus and he survives at least one assassination attempt from within the military. Deeming him politically expedient, Gallus is lured by Constantius with false offers of co-emperor, then he is arrested and executed.
Julian does not seem surprised at the news of his brother’s execution, almost expecting it. The following year, AD 355, Julian is also given the Caesar title as the military and ruler of Gaul. There are many fascinating chapters and a lot of detail in the book about his life in Paris as Caesar and the military campaigns against the Germanic tribes including the victorious Battle of Strasbourg in AD 357. This military rule and battles with the Germanic tribes continued for three more years and Julian became very popular with the troops and the people who started to call him Augustus. He then just decided to take on the title.
His cousin Constantius was still ruling in the east and being the rightful Augustus decided enough was enough. He launched a campaign to defeat his usurping cousin Julian. As Julian's army was eventually hemmed in by the larger armies of the Emperor Constantius, Julian received some good fortune when Constantius fell ill and died. There was little outward resistance to Julian then claiming the title as sole Emperor.
At this point in the story, wanting to consolidate power in the east, Julian in AD 361 overconfidently launched a multi-year campaign against the Persians. Julian’s army was successful militarily in the early battles, leading his army of tens of thousands into Mesopotamia, but eventually the extremely hot weather arrives and the Persians began burning crops to starve out Julian’s army and it worked. As a result there are threats of mutiny amongst Julian’s troops. While looking for astrological signs in the stars for months, Julian finally heeds the warnings and turns his army back from deep within Persia.
So in AD 363 he leads his army back along the long and winding Euphrates. He loses men to disease and starvation and skirmishes with Persian militias from nearby strongholds. In one of the battles he is struck in the abdomen and liver with a spear from which he succumbs a few days later. We learn that the spear is of Roman origin so it is clear that he was killed by one of his own men. Late in the book, we learn what happened from one of the narrators who visited Julian’s aide-de-camp in that last campaign.
The aide, a former slave, is now retired and living a life of luxury along the coast of the Mediterranean. He admits to spearing Julian during the battle but never divulges how he came by his wealth leaving the reader to wonder who ordered the assassination. Since enough time had passed since Julian’s death and because Julian was an apostate there is little appetite to prosecute his assassin anyway and that’s where the story ends.
***** End of Spoiler *****
So this novel was exceptionally well written. I can’t say that the language and voices used were as convincing as a period piece like say ‘I Claudius’ but ‘Julian’ was generally more educational and interesting than Claudius’ story to be sure. Vidal has written many novels and is indisputably one of the 20th century’s greatest essayists and I observed that his writing style tends to be more informative and analytical than overly dramatic, at least in this novel. There is very little discussion of women in this book, apart from unflattering descriptions of Helena, the wife who Julian was arranged to marry by his cousin.
After I read the essay, ‘Against the Galileans’ by Julian, I can also say that Vidal probably attributed too much emphasis to Julian’s belief in classical mythology in making military decisions. I got the clear sense from Julian’s own words that he was much more of a traditionalist and did not appreciate what he viewed as the new mythologies, such as Christianity in particular, which were so rapidly transforming the culture in the Roman empire. Something to the effect of, we already have a Greek and Roman mythological culture why do we need a new one. This view was in spite of the fact that his uncle, Constantine the Great, may have done more than anyone in history to spread Christianity.
4.5 stars. There is some flatness in the writing of this story and so it might be of less interest to those who don’t especially like historical books.
Attributed to Julian by Gore Vidal.
Julian is a well crafted historical fictional soliloquy written by Gore Vidal in 1964. It is some five hundred pages in length but moves along quickly. Covering the thirty-two year life of the last of the great Roman emperors, the story includes palace intrigue, a great deal of history, fascinating war campaigns and then ultimate betrayal. Vidal’s tone is somewhat subdued in the book perhaps because there are enough historically dramatic events such that Vidal didn’t feel the need to oversell. There is also another narrator in the presence of Priscus, an actual historian of the 5th century, who does some minor narrating to correct Julian’s errant facts and begin the story when Julian is young and wrap it up after he dies.
Julian’s reign as Roman Emperor (AD 361 - AD 363) was significant in many ways but was largely so because he came so near the end of the one thousand year reign of the Roman Empire. Julian was known to posterity as Julian the Apostate, a boy raised as a Christian who renounced Christianity early in life. He was considered the last pagan Emperor, even though that sobriquet is not entirely accurate.
Julian was also a noted philosopher and eventual military leader who wrote several books in his young life. ‘Against the Galileans’, perhaps his most famous writing, is a long essay dissecting the origins and inconsistencies of Christianity, even to a large degree defending the logical nature of Judaism although he was not a believer of Judaism himself. In this essay he asserted that Jesus Christ as the son of God is as much a myth as the Greek gods. The writings of Julian and the nearly contemporary writings of Theodoret in the 5th century AD are where Vidal drew much of his inspiration.
***** This may be a spoiler for some *****
The novel itself starts out when Julian and his older brother Gallus are young boys. Their mother had died giving birth to Julian. We learn that Gallus is a bully through a number of episodes but amidst the resentment there is still a brotherly bond there. A few years later, while acting as the emperor’s consul, their father, is assassinated by the Roman Emperor Constantius II. Constantius II also happens to be Gallus and Julian’s older cousin. From this moment in the novel the boys are now orphans. They are looked after by their cousin and given the best education, the boys are split up and their private instruction and living arrangements shuffle between palaces in Byzantium and Greece.
While being educated the boys are also routinely spied upon by the eunuchs of which Constantius is fond of relying on. Vidal masterfully creates the aura of palace intrigue through several eunuchs. The Roman Empire is so large and there often many Caesars needed to rule, fight rebellions, pacify the populace and bring in tax revenue for the Emperor. Thus this need for loyal Caesars is why Constantius wants to educate and have the boys prosper despite having killed their father. To ensure that they remain loyal, he needs his spies.
So Julian learns to rely almost solely on himself and keeps a low profile and does not espouse much in his writings or criticize the Emperor within earshot. This would only give his cousin the justification to assassinate him. Julian studies religion and philosophy and by his teenage years has already given up on the idea of Christianity. Gallus is more outspoken in his opinions but is more focused on becoming a military leader.
Constantius eventually elevates Gallus to Caesar in the East when he is twenty-five. He is needed in the East to quash rebellions in Serbia and elsewhere in Byzantium and persecute rebellious Jews. Ruling is dangerously difficult for Gallus and he survives at least one assassination attempt from within the military. Deeming him politically expedient, Gallus is lured by Constantius with false offers of co-emperor, then he is arrested and executed.
Julian does not seem surprised at the news of his brother’s execution, almost expecting it. The following year, AD 355, Julian is also given the Caesar title as the military and ruler of Gaul. There are many fascinating chapters and a lot of detail in the book about his life in Paris as Caesar and the military campaigns against the Germanic tribes including the victorious Battle of Strasbourg in AD 357. This military rule and battles with the Germanic tribes continued for three more years and Julian became very popular with the troops and the people who started to call him Augustus. He then just decided to take on the title.
His cousin Constantius was still ruling in the east and being the rightful Augustus decided enough was enough. He launched a campaign to defeat his usurping cousin Julian. As Julian's army was eventually hemmed in by the larger armies of the Emperor Constantius, Julian received some good fortune when Constantius fell ill and died. There was little outward resistance to Julian then claiming the title as sole Emperor.
At this point in the story, wanting to consolidate power in the east, Julian in AD 361 overconfidently launched a multi-year campaign against the Persians. Julian’s army was successful militarily in the early battles, leading his army of tens of thousands into Mesopotamia, but eventually the extremely hot weather arrives and the Persians began burning crops to starve out Julian’s army and it worked. As a result there are threats of mutiny amongst Julian’s troops. While looking for astrological signs in the stars for months, Julian finally heeds the warnings and turns his army back from deep within Persia.
So in AD 363 he leads his army back along the long and winding Euphrates. He loses men to disease and starvation and skirmishes with Persian militias from nearby strongholds. In one of the battles he is struck in the abdomen and liver with a spear from which he succumbs a few days later. We learn that the spear is of Roman origin so it is clear that he was killed by one of his own men. Late in the book, we learn what happened from one of the narrators who visited Julian’s aide-de-camp in that last campaign.
The aide, a former slave, is now retired and living a life of luxury along the coast of the Mediterranean. He admits to spearing Julian during the battle but never divulges how he came by his wealth leaving the reader to wonder who ordered the assassination. Since enough time had passed since Julian’s death and because Julian was an apostate there is little appetite to prosecute his assassin anyway and that’s where the story ends.
***** End of Spoiler *****
So this novel was exceptionally well written. I can’t say that the language and voices used were as convincing as a period piece like say ‘I Claudius’ but ‘Julian’ was generally more educational and interesting than Claudius’ story to be sure. Vidal has written many novels and is indisputably one of the 20th century’s greatest essayists and I observed that his writing style tends to be more informative and analytical than overly dramatic, at least in this novel. There is very little discussion of women in this book, apart from unflattering descriptions of Helena, the wife who Julian was arranged to marry by his cousin.
After I read the essay, ‘Against the Galileans’ by Julian, I can also say that Vidal probably attributed too much emphasis to Julian’s belief in classical mythology in making military decisions. I got the clear sense from Julian’s own words that he was much more of a traditionalist and did not appreciate what he viewed as the new mythologies, such as Christianity in particular, which were so rapidly transforming the culture in the Roman empire. Something to the effect of, we already have a Greek and Roman mythological culture why do we need a new one. This view was in spite of the fact that his uncle, Constantine the Great, may have done more than anyone in history to spread Christianity.
4.5 stars. There is some flatness in the writing of this story and so it might be of less interest to those who don’t especially like historical books.
May 26, 2023
Julian falls flat in its delivery due to the novel’s approach to its subject. The novel is presented as Emperor Julian Augustus’s autobiography spanning his short life. Julian’s writing is augmented by commentary from two old philosophers who lived during the emperor’s reign.
The result of this autobiographical structure is that the novel reads like a history book. The emotions of the events are flattened down to the point where human emotions such as happiness, anger, sadness, etc. are all presented as adjectives on the page as opposed to actions by the characters. The old writing adage of ���Show, don't tell” is excluded from these pages and makes this novel very dry and unexpressive. Given this scholarly feel to the novel, it seemed a bit wasteful to read a fictional history about Julian Augustus when factual accounts, told in the same historic tone, must certainly exist.
In reading Julian, I kept remembering a similar work written by John Williams (of Stoner notoriety) that was entitled Augustus. In William’s novel, he presents the fictional biography of Caesar Augustus, Rome’s first emperor. In addition to the similarity in subject, Williams also used first-hand manuscripts to tell his story.
The contrast between the two books, however, is striking. While Julian is dry and slogging, Augustus reflects the human elements of life that surrounded Caesar Augustus. The difference is that Williams told his story with manuscripts that were never intended for publication such as letters and journal entries. This approach begged an intimacy in writing while the self-written autobiographical format of Julian does not.
The main point of the novel may have been Vidal’s desire to offer criticisms of Christianity and religious beliefs in general. Vidal points out Christianity’s inherent contradictions, hypocrisies, and its blatant borrowings from the pagan rites that preceded it. For emphasis, Vidal transforms Julian into a pagan equivalent of Jesus and proceeds to highlight some of same criticisms made of Christianity through Julian’s actions and pagan beliefs. These points are interesting but they are extremely diluted by countless characters, places and events that have no actual bearing on the story. The overall effect is that the interesting elements are lost to significant disinterest in mostly everything else in the novel.
The result of this autobiographical structure is that the novel reads like a history book. The emotions of the events are flattened down to the point where human emotions such as happiness, anger, sadness, etc. are all presented as adjectives on the page as opposed to actions by the characters. The old writing adage of ���Show, don't tell” is excluded from these pages and makes this novel very dry and unexpressive. Given this scholarly feel to the novel, it seemed a bit wasteful to read a fictional history about Julian Augustus when factual accounts, told in the same historic tone, must certainly exist.
In reading Julian, I kept remembering a similar work written by John Williams (of Stoner notoriety) that was entitled Augustus. In William’s novel, he presents the fictional biography of Caesar Augustus, Rome’s first emperor. In addition to the similarity in subject, Williams also used first-hand manuscripts to tell his story.
The contrast between the two books, however, is striking. While Julian is dry and slogging, Augustus reflects the human elements of life that surrounded Caesar Augustus. The difference is that Williams told his story with manuscripts that were never intended for publication such as letters and journal entries. This approach begged an intimacy in writing while the self-written autobiographical format of Julian does not.
The main point of the novel may have been Vidal’s desire to offer criticisms of Christianity and religious beliefs in general. Vidal points out Christianity’s inherent contradictions, hypocrisies, and its blatant borrowings from the pagan rites that preceded it. For emphasis, Vidal transforms Julian into a pagan equivalent of Jesus and proceeds to highlight some of same criticisms made of Christianity through Julian’s actions and pagan beliefs. These points are interesting but they are extremely diluted by countless characters, places and events that have no actual bearing on the story. The overall effect is that the interesting elements are lost to significant disinterest in mostly everything else in the novel.
August 24, 2022
Sadly, I remember a class I had in high school that focused on Greek and Roman history. The teacher was highly respected but for some reason just didn’t grab my interest. At some point in high school, though, I read both The Iliad and The Odyssey and loved them, so I didn’t leave high school completely ignorant on these subjects. Earlier this year I read Augustus by John Williams and was simply blown away. I was then motivated to pick up Julian by Gore Vidal, which had been on my shelves for years.
Gore Vidal has thoroughly researched his subject. In the introduction to the edition I read, Mr. Vidal explains that the most unique aspect of Julian’s life is the wealth of rich material on which a writer can draw. Mr. Vidal states that he changes no facts but instead adds details in the spaces between what is known.
Julian’s career as Emperor was short. The novel spends significant time on Julian’s youth and his pursuits prior to becoming Emperor before focusing on his time as Emperor. Mr. Vidal makes it clear that death, execution for the political risk he represented, was always a possibility throughout Julian’s childhood and only increased as he matured. However, you don’t get much insight into how often Julian must have thought about the possibility of becoming Emperor and to what degree he did or did not desire it.
Julian is a magnificent military and organizational leader, but he effectively guarantees his short tenure as Emperor by making it his objective to resurrect the “old” religion in the shadow of Christianity’s success. He creates many enemies of those who would otherwise have been supporters. It is this effort to change the beliefs of the Roman society that is the contrast between his brilliance and his lack of common sense, his denial of reality. Being born into greatness as well as placing too much faith in the wrong advisors are major ingredients in some of the poor decisions Julian made.
Gore Vidal created a thoroughly enjoyable historical novel in Julian. Historical fiction is typically not a genre to which I am attracted, but I enjoy it more when I feel I can trust the history portion of the fiction.
Gore Vidal has thoroughly researched his subject. In the introduction to the edition I read, Mr. Vidal explains that the most unique aspect of Julian’s life is the wealth of rich material on which a writer can draw. Mr. Vidal states that he changes no facts but instead adds details in the spaces between what is known.
Julian’s career as Emperor was short. The novel spends significant time on Julian’s youth and his pursuits prior to becoming Emperor before focusing on his time as Emperor. Mr. Vidal makes it clear that death, execution for the political risk he represented, was always a possibility throughout Julian’s childhood and only increased as he matured. However, you don’t get much insight into how often Julian must have thought about the possibility of becoming Emperor and to what degree he did or did not desire it.
Julian is a magnificent military and organizational leader, but he effectively guarantees his short tenure as Emperor by making it his objective to resurrect the “old” religion in the shadow of Christianity’s success. He creates many enemies of those who would otherwise have been supporters. It is this effort to change the beliefs of the Roman society that is the contrast between his brilliance and his lack of common sense, his denial of reality. Being born into greatness as well as placing too much faith in the wrong advisors are major ingredients in some of the poor decisions Julian made.
Gore Vidal created a thoroughly enjoyable historical novel in Julian. Historical fiction is typically not a genre to which I am attracted, but I enjoy it more when I feel I can trust the history portion of the fiction.
December 29, 2017
Excellent novel! I had a recollection of this book from ages back, but needed to retake it, and it was a good idea to read it following Ken Broeders' Apostate series, which also has Caesar Julian Augustus as its protagonist.
I thought it'd be an interesting new experience to revisit this period of Roman history I normally don't invest much in by way of contrasting different depictions of the emperor who tried to end Christianity as Rome's official religion. In this novel, we get Julian's story in his own words, as this is written in journal plus historical chronicle format, but it doesn't mean we only get his side, because interspersed throughout Julian's journal entries are "commentaries" by two men who knew and followed him, a pair of often cheeky philosophers called Priscus and Libanius, who interject protests, clarifications, and hilarious counterfactual addenda in-between the emperor's account of events, sometimes outright contradicting him. That was a clever device by Gore Vidal to give the story the feel of impartiality that first person narratives usually lack. In contrast to Broeders' series, this book has a sober tone, sometimes rather too serious, yet doesn't entirely circumvent little bits of scandal and salacious morsels to enliven the story, which is a neat mix to keep readers entertained. I also found Vidal's interpretation of how Julian's demise came to be rather unexpected, as it's one I didn't remember reading. Very creative, though, and makes you feel for this apostate emperor and for what could have been if he'd not died so young whilst at the pinnacle.
I thought it'd be an interesting new experience to revisit this period of Roman history I normally don't invest much in by way of contrasting different depictions of the emperor who tried to end Christianity as Rome's official religion. In this novel, we get Julian's story in his own words, as this is written in journal plus historical chronicle format, but it doesn't mean we only get his side, because interspersed throughout Julian's journal entries are "commentaries" by two men who knew and followed him, a pair of often cheeky philosophers called Priscus and Libanius, who interject protests, clarifications, and hilarious counterfactual addenda in-between the emperor's account of events, sometimes outright contradicting him. That was a clever device by Gore Vidal to give the story the feel of impartiality that first person narratives usually lack. In contrast to Broeders' series, this book has a sober tone, sometimes rather too serious, yet doesn't entirely circumvent little bits of scandal and salacious morsels to enliven the story, which is a neat mix to keep readers entertained. I also found Vidal's interpretation of how Julian's demise came to be rather unexpected, as it's one I didn't remember reading. Very creative, though, and makes you feel for this apostate emperor and for what could have been if he'd not died so young whilst at the pinnacle.
December 20, 2022
After a slow start, Julian becomes a fascinating portrayal of religious conflict and imperial politics during the Late Roman Empire. Initially, the exchange of letters between two of Julian Augustus' former mentors is tedious, but their commentary becomes comic relief to the emperor's memoirs and notes. Vidal's history of Julian's life is thorough, and he depicts him in a very contemporary manner, reasonable and extremely tolerant, albeit superstitious by our standards. Through his commentators, Vidal raises interesting questions regarding what would have happened if Julian had not gone on campaign in Persia or had accepted the Persian King's peace terms and creates suspense regarding who killed him. Nevertheless, while informative and philosophical, the novel is not very exciting.
December 11, 2018
Como são maravilhosos os livros, ao atravessarem os mundos e os séculos, ao derrotarem a ignorância e, por fim, o próprio tempo cruel. Façamos com que Juliano viva outra vez e para sempre.
[de Libânio para Prisco]
Gore Vidal desvenda Juliano através da pena do próprio. Este escreveu " fragmentos de memórias" e à medida que o papiro é desvendado pelos filósofos Libânio e Prisco , estes mentores de Juliano trocam correspondência comentando passagens, ou seja, acontecimentos, personagens e até algumas falhas de personalidade, que Juliano julga não ter. Este estratagema de Gore V. vai aproximando o leitor do Imperador, apesar da bruma do tempo, tornando-o mais autêntico e humano.
Juliano, sobrinho de Constantino, nasceu em 331, tendo recebido uma rígida educação cristã . Não podia ser de outro modo. Contudo, cedo se interessa pelos autores clássicos e, quando jovem adulto vai estudar com os filósofos neo-platónicos, como Máximo de Éfeso.
Quando se torna Augusto , em 361, Juliano tem como objectivo principal apoiar o Helenismo na sua guerra contra os Galileus ( cristãos). As suas medidas levaram à redução substancial dos funcionários do palácio imperial, à reconstrução e reabertura dos templos pagãos, à nomeação de sacerdotes para os mesmos e à proibição dos galileus ensinarem os clássicos (para estes não serem esvaziados do seu verdadeiro conteúdo). Não se ocupou em perseguir até à morte, nem em fechar as portas de templos. A guerra contra os seguidores do Nazareno é esgrimida com constatações legítimas, argumentos ferozes e com a exigência de contenção em público. No entanto, os rituais pagãos , aos quais Juliano se entregava regularmente, são também alvo de dúvidas através de Libânio e Prisco. Estes põem em causa a verdade e eficácia dos oráculos e dos sacrifícios (um desperdício de animais...). O humor é subtil mas até o leitor mais distraído acaba por se dar conta dele. A alusão a contratempos nos rituais ou a descodificação das mensagens enviadas pelos deuses não deixam dúvidas.
Então, em quem acreditar? Julgo que Gore Vidal nos dá a resposta apesar de não a registar ...em nós mesmos.
Um-livro-quase-perfeito-de-Vidal !
(não sei se é erro da tradução, mas da boca do Imperador nunca sairia um "Bolas!" . Comparar um momento de ansiedade de Juliano à emoção que "as crianças têm ao rasgar o papel dos presentes" é um deslize que me chamou à realidade. Mas a obra no seu todo supera estas escorregadelas. Voltarei a ela. )
[de Libânio para Prisco]
Gore Vidal desvenda Juliano através da pena do próprio. Este escreveu " fragmentos de memórias" e à medida que o papiro é desvendado pelos filósofos Libânio e Prisco , estes mentores de Juliano trocam correspondência comentando passagens, ou seja, acontecimentos, personagens e até algumas falhas de personalidade, que Juliano julga não ter. Este estratagema de Gore V. vai aproximando o leitor do Imperador, apesar da bruma do tempo, tornando-o mais autêntico e humano.
Juliano, sobrinho de Constantino, nasceu em 331, tendo recebido uma rígida educação cristã . Não podia ser de outro modo. Contudo, cedo se interessa pelos autores clássicos e, quando jovem adulto vai estudar com os filósofos neo-platónicos, como Máximo de Éfeso.
Quando se torna Augusto , em 361, Juliano tem como objectivo principal apoiar o Helenismo na sua guerra contra os Galileus ( cristãos). As suas medidas levaram à redução substancial dos funcionários do palácio imperial, à reconstrução e reabertura dos templos pagãos, à nomeação de sacerdotes para os mesmos e à proibição dos galileus ensinarem os clássicos (para estes não serem esvaziados do seu verdadeiro conteúdo). Não se ocupou em perseguir até à morte, nem em fechar as portas de templos. A guerra contra os seguidores do Nazareno é esgrimida com constatações legítimas, argumentos ferozes e com a exigência de contenção em público. No entanto, os rituais pagãos , aos quais Juliano se entregava regularmente, são também alvo de dúvidas através de Libânio e Prisco. Estes põem em causa a verdade e eficácia dos oráculos e dos sacrifícios (um desperdício de animais...). O humor é subtil mas até o leitor mais distraído acaba por se dar conta dele. A alusão a contratempos nos rituais ou a descodificação das mensagens enviadas pelos deuses não deixam dúvidas.
Então, em quem acreditar? Julgo que Gore Vidal nos dá a resposta apesar de não a registar ...em nós mesmos.
Um-livro-quase-perfeito-de-Vidal !
(não sei se é erro da tradução, mas da boca do Imperador nunca sairia um "Bolas!" . Comparar um momento de ansiedade de Juliano à emoção que "as crianças têm ao rasgar o papel dos presentes" é um deslize que me chamou à realidade. Mas a obra no seu todo supera estas escorregadelas. Voltarei a ela. )
March 28, 2019
A gripping but sad story about a would-be philosopher who reluctantly became emperor. Contrary to his predecessors, Constantine and Constantius II, he was tolerant and reasonable. A fervent Hellenist, he despised Christianity which had been made into the compulsory unique state religion by Constantine. While supporting religious freedom, Julian did his best to reinstate the old Roman values and religious traditions (many of which were themselves imported). Unfortunately, his tolerance was interpreted as weakness by some and he was, according to the book, assassinated by a personal -- Christian -- assistant during the Persian campaign. He only reigned for 2 years and one can only speculate on how history would have been different if he had had a chance to firmly entrench his many reforms.
The story is written as a sequence of fragments of Julian's (imaginary) diary, with frequent additions and often humorous comments by his former Hellenistic teachers. Throughout the tale, one learns that at that time, the Christians were perceived as a fanatic sect that did not hesitate to murder its own members if they had a different opinion, e.g. about the trinity. Also, it is argued that, in order to gain market share, they stole concepts of any popular rival religion, e.g. the cult of Mithras.
Strongly recommended if you're interested in Roman history.
The story is written as a sequence of fragments of Julian's (imaginary) diary, with frequent additions and often humorous comments by his former Hellenistic teachers. Throughout the tale, one learns that at that time, the Christians were perceived as a fanatic sect that did not hesitate to murder its own members if they had a different opinion, e.g. about the trinity. Also, it is argued that, in order to gain market share, they stole concepts of any popular rival religion, e.g. the cult of Mithras.
Strongly recommended if you're interested in Roman history.
October 18, 2008
I suggest that those who can not accept criticism of their Christian religion skip this book. The Roman Emperor Julian was totally offended by the Christians of the 4th century AD.
I first read this historical novel back in the 1960's. I enjoyed it then and I enjoyed it even more now. This time I really picked up on Julian's flaws; 40 years ago I think I just was rooting for him to win (knowing, of course, he would ultimately fail) and I ignored this dark side.
Gore Vidal did extensive research in preparation for this book and it shows.
July 6, 2023
Libro scritto molto bene e storicamente illuminante (frutto di 5 anni di ricerche dell'autore). Parte centrale un po' pesante e non sono andato a nozze con la figura di Giuliano. Filosofo colto, buono, mq poco lungimirante. Morto più per le sue manie, che per aver osteggiato i cristiani.
March 30, 2019
Залезът често прилича на изгрева - ярки цветове пронизват небето, и светът сякаш се устремява към вечността. Юлиан крачи на ръба между два свята. Да си последен понякога е точно толкова значимо, колкото и да си пръв. Но е доста по-рядък избор за историци и писатели, щом си от страната на победените.
Обвито доскоро в мистика, все още младото християнство, започва да добива физиономия и ясна структура, сдобива се с власт, вярата прераства в религия, доктрина и бюрокрация. То все още търси себе си - точно колко Божи е Божият син, и колко човек? Но въпросите извън официалната линия започват да навлизат в опасната зона на ереста, и добре че в този век тази линия все още криволичи. Логиката, философията, реториката и всички останали науки скромно следва да дават предимство първо на религията и нейната официална доктрина, и едва след това на безпристастния аналитичен подход. Да, боговете на всички монотеистични религии са страстни и ревниви, и не търпят конкурентен анализ на битието.
Още повече ако конкуренцията идва от уморените, избледняващи и някак безстрастни и затова толерантни богове на гръцката и Римската античност. И Зевс, и Хермес, и Аполон отдавна са лишени от мистика и са предоставили свобода на човешкия дух. Но в човешкото сърце се се настанили скука, страх и жажда за нов огън.
Този огън ще погълне Юлиан едва на 32 годишна възраст в далечна, чужда, нажежена до бяло земя. Безсилни са сенките на старите богове да спрат колелото на времето, което ще се застопори на едно място за следващите 10 века.
Тригласието в романа за пореден път се доказва като удачен похват. Избраните гласове са интересни, спорещи и преливащи. Хапливият диалог на двамата стари философи ми стана любим. А Юлиан доказва колко подвеждаща и манипулативна е човешката памет и колко гъвкаво може да се променя миналото, с него да се влияе на настоящето и да се задава тон на бъдещето.
Един изключително увлекателен, скептичен, ерудиран, искрен и безжалостен Гор Видал! В света на римляни и гърци отеква Пакс Американа, във студентите-циници надничат децата на цветята. А властта е така добре описана, че ако човек смени термините с модерни такива, текстът остава актуален. Но това са само приятни странични екстри. А залезът може да е красив като изгрева на цяла една невероятна епоха, която е все още в пелени.
П.С. Ще дам трети шанс на пустото му “С��творение”, дано тоя път го прочета без да заспя!
П.П.С. Аман от правописни грешки...
Обвито доскоро в мистика, все още младото християнство, започва да добива физиономия и ясна структура, сдобива се с власт, вярата прераства в религия, доктрина и бюрокрация. То все още търси себе си - точно колко Божи е Божият син, и колко човек? Но въпросите извън официалната линия започват да навлизат в опасната зона на ереста, и добре че в този век тази линия все още криволичи. Логиката, философията, реториката и всички останали науки скромно следва да дават предимство първо на религията и нейната официална доктрина, и едва след това на безпристастния аналитичен подход. Да, боговете на всички монотеистични религии са страстни и ревниви, и не търпят конкурентен анализ на битието.
Още повече ако конкуренцията идва от уморените, избледняващи и някак безстрастни и затова толерантни богове на гръцката и Римската античност. И Зевс, и Хермес, и Аполон отдавна са лишени от мистика и са предоставили свобода на човешкия дух. Но в човешкото сърце се се настанили скука, страх и жажда за нов огън.
Този огън ще погълне Юлиан едва на 32 годишна възраст в далечна, чужда, нажежена до бяло земя. Безсилни са сенките на старите богове да спрат колелото на времето, което ще се застопори на едно място за следващите 10 века.
Тригласието в романа за пореден път се доказва като удачен похват. Избраните гласове са интересни, спорещи и преливащи. Хапливият диалог на двамата стари философи ми стана любим. А Юлиан доказва колко подвеждаща и манипулативна е човешката памет и колко гъвкаво може да се променя миналото, с него да се влияе на настоящето и да се задава тон на бъдещето.
Един изключително увлекателен, скептичен, ерудиран, искрен и безжалостен Гор Видал! В света на римляни и гърци отеква Пакс Американа, във студентите-циници надничат децата на цветята. А властта е така добре описана, че ако човек смени термините с модерни такива, текстът остава актуален. Но това са само приятни странични екстри. А залезът може да е красив като изгрева на цяла една невероятна епоха, която е все още в пелени.
П.С. Ще дам трети шанс на пустото му “С��творение”, дано тоя път го прочета без да заспя!
П.П.С. Аман от правописни грешки...
July 11, 2022
Čitajući Gibonovo Opadanje i propast Rimskog carstva, privukao me Julijan II, o kom zapravo nisam znao skoro ništa. Pošto je bio car jedva tri godine, a avgust jedva godinu i po dana, nije ni to čudno - čudnije je što je eto uspeo da ostavi takav utisak - Gibon o njemu piše na barem dvadesetak strana.
Vidalov istorijski roman, napisan iz ugla tri naratora kroz pisma i Julijanove 'lične zapise', temelji na gomili dokumenata koji su ostali od - možda je on car od kog nam je ostalo i najviše pisama, ličnih zapisa, razmišljanja... Poznat kao 'Julijan Filozof', a među hrišćanima kasnije kao 'Julijan Otpadnik', poslužio je za jedan od najboljih istorijskih romana koje sam pročitao. Verovatno je Julijanova, pomalo romantična, želja da se zaštiti stara religija i hramovi pred naletom agresivnog hrišćanstva, ali i da se sačuva filozofska škola stare Grčke, ima veze s mojom, Gibonovom i Vidalovom opčinjenošću ovim mladićem.
Na Julijanovu i moju žalost, manje od pola veka nakon smrti njegovog strica Konstantina, hrišćanstvo se proširilo Mediteranom sa nekih 5% stanovništva na više od 50%. Povratka nije bilo, čak i da je Julijan vladao decenijama, teško bi obrnuo ovaj trend. Ali, ostaje ono 'šta ako', koje nam kaže da bi se mogla malo bolje očuvati ostavština antike, koja je u tom periodu bespoštedno uništavana.
Julijanov život je više nego zanimljiv, a ovo je odličan roman, lepo i jednostavno ispričan, ali koristeći i Julijanove filozofske poglede (koji su pretpostavljam, uzeti iz njegove lične prepiske?) Marko Aurelije - car filozof? Nakon ovoga, nisam siguran da bih baš njega tako nazvao.
Vidalov istorijski roman, napisan iz ugla tri naratora kroz pisma i Julijanove 'lične zapise', temelji na gomili dokumenata koji su ostali od - možda je on car od kog nam je ostalo i najviše pisama, ličnih zapisa, razmišljanja... Poznat kao 'Julijan Filozof', a među hrišćanima kasnije kao 'Julijan Otpadnik', poslužio je za jedan od najboljih istorijskih romana koje sam pročitao. Verovatno je Julijanova, pomalo romantična, želja da se zaštiti stara religija i hramovi pred naletom agresivnog hrišćanstva, ali i da se sačuva filozofska škola stare Grčke, ima veze s mojom, Gibonovom i Vidalovom opčinjenošću ovim mladićem.
Na Julijanovu i moju žalost, manje od pola veka nakon smrti njegovog strica Konstantina, hrišćanstvo se proširilo Mediteranom sa nekih 5% stanovništva na više od 50%. Povratka nije bilo, čak i da je Julijan vladao decenijama, teško bi obrnuo ovaj trend. Ali, ostaje ono 'šta ako', koje nam kaže da bi se mogla malo bolje očuvati ostavština antike, koja je u tom periodu bespoštedno uništavana.
Julijanov život je više nego zanimljiv, a ovo je odličan roman, lepo i jednostavno ispričan, ali koristeći i Julijanove filozofske poglede (koji su pretpostavljam, uzeti iz njegove lične prepiske?) Marko Aurelije - car filozof? Nakon ovoga, nisam siguran da bih baš njega tako nazvao.
August 21, 2015
Πραγματικά λυπάμαι που τελείωσε αυτό το βιβλίο. Φρεσκάροντας τις γνώσεις μου για την περίοδο που έζησε ο Ιουλιανός, συνειδητοποίησα ότι αυτό που είχα διαβάσει, ότι ο Gore Vidal μένει σε γενικές γραμμές πιστός στα ιστορικά δεδομένα, ισχύει. Ωστόσο, το βιβλίο είναι ιστορικό μυθιστόρημα και όχι ιστορία. Ο συγγραφέας μεταφέρει τον αναγνώστη στην εποχή των πρώτων χρόνων της επικράτησης του χριστιανισμού με ευκολία και σκιαγραφεί ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον πορτραίτο του τελευταίου αυτοκράτορα που έμεινε πιστός στο ελληνικό πνεύμα και τη φιλοσοφία.
Στον "Ιουλιανό" διαβάζουμε την αλληλογραφία μεταξύ δύο σημαντικών φιλοσόφων της εποχής, του Πρίσκου από την Αθήνα και του Λιβάνιου από την Αντιόχεια, οι οποίοι συζητούν τι θα κάνουν με τα απομνημονεύματα του Ιουλιανού. Οι δύο φιλόσοφοι αστειεύονται, διαφωνούν, καυτηριάζουν πολλές φορές ο ένας τον άλλον. Ο πρώτος είναι ορθολογιστής και απορρίπτει την ιδέα της μετά θάνατον ζωής ενώ ο δεύτερος μοιράζεται τις αποκρυφιστικές και μυστηριακές τάσεις του Ιουλιανού. Μοναδικό κοινό σημείο τους φαίνεται να είναι η αγάπη και ο θαυμασμός τους για τον ελληνιστή αύγουστο.
Απολαυστικό βιβλίο. Στα συν του η ιστορική ακρίβεια (στο βαθμό βέβαια που δε βλάπτει τη μυθοπλαστική δημιουργία).
Στον "Ιουλιανό" διαβάζουμε την αλληλογραφία μεταξύ δύο σημαντικών φιλοσόφων της εποχής, του Πρίσκου από την Αθήνα και του Λιβάνιου από την Αντιόχεια, οι οποίοι συζητούν τι θα κάνουν με τα απομνημονεύματα του Ιουλιανού. Οι δύο φιλόσοφοι αστειεύονται, διαφωνούν, καυτηριάζουν πολλές φορές ο ένας τον άλλον. Ο πρώτος είναι ορθολογιστής και απορρίπτει την ιδέα της μετά θάνατον ζωής ενώ ο δεύτερος μοιράζεται τις αποκρυφιστικές και μυστηριακές τάσεις του Ιουλιανού. Μοναδικό κοινό σημείο τους φαίνεται να είναι η αγάπη και ο θαυμασμός τους για τον ελληνιστή αύγουστο.
Απολαυστικό βιβλίο. Στα συν του η ιστορική ακρίβεια (στο βαθμό βέβαια που δε βλάπτει τη μυθοπλαστική δημιουργία).
September 25, 2013
The best book, hands-down, on everyone's favorite revanchist pagan emperor. If it was a person, I would kiss it. But it isn't, so I read it. You should, too.
February 1, 2016
Nu cred ca pot scrie o recenzie suficient de buna pentru a exprima tot ce inseamna Iulian de Gore Vidal.
Imi plac romanele istorice, tocmai pentru ca pot face o comparatie intre adevar si reinterpretarea autorului. Sa extrag esenta literara prin efectuarea diferentei intre fictiune si factualitate. Insa Iulian mi-a conferit o dorinta de ignoranta. Daca viata imparatului s-a desfasurat altfel decat in modul descris in acest roman, nici nu vreau sa admit adevarul ca realitate, caci pana la urma si fictiunea este felul sau de realitate.
Iulian nu este doar povestea unei vieti de imparat. Este povestea unei sfasieri a timpului. Iulian Apostatul a fost ultimul imparat roman care sa se inchine zeilor pagani, ai romei. Unchiul sau, Constantin cel Mare, a adoptat religia crestina ca religie oficiala a casei imperiale, cu cateva decenii inainte de nasterea nepotului, insa in Roma vechii zei continuau sa fie venerati, desi adeptii erau adesea persecutati. Iulian este introdus ca un potential pretendent al tronului imperial, detinut in anul 345 de Constantius al II-lea. Pasionat de filosofie, si de cultura elenista singurul lui obiectiv este sa ramana in viata.
Evenimente fortuite in viata tanarului, il propulseaza mai intai in pozitia de Cezar al Galiei, iar apoi, datorita talentului militar, in pozitia de Imparat la Romei. De fiecare data , Iulian accepta sub aparenta dorinta inocenta de a ramane in viata. Romanul infatiseaza perfect efectul de corupere al puterii. Dintr-un copil slab, fara aspiratii mai mari decat cele de sihastrie, ajunge un imparat puternic, abil :" Nu sunt eu Alexandru cel reintors pentru a termina marea lucrare de a aduce Rasaritului barbar adevarul din Grecia? "
Gore Vidal structureaza romanul pe baza unei corespondente intre doi filozofi, apropiati ai lui Iulian, ce intreprind scrierea unei biografii a imparatului, bazata pe memoriile pe care acesata si-le a notat spre sfarsitul vietii. Exista astfel o dubla relatare asupra evenimentelor. Perspectiva lui Iulian rareori este obiectiva, dar este completata de la fel de subiectiva perspectiva a filozofilor.
Un punct central al romanului este divergenta religioasa, ce a si adus moartea imparatului. Momentul in care tanarul este convins de credinta sa pagana, mi-a amintit teribil de Star Wars, trilogia lui Anakin. Vidal creeaza un punct de dezbatere bine conturat in privinta celor doua religii. Ridica problema alegerii unui singur popor, revizuirea bibliei, diferentei intre cei doi Dumnezei, cel veterotestamentar si neotestamentar s.a.m.d.
Pe alocuri (inevitabil pentru mine sa nu fac comparatia asta) imi aducea aminte de personajul lui Frank Underwood, din cauza stilului de ascedere sociala, aparent nevinovata, dar revelata cu ajutorul celor doi naratori. Iulian nu devine full-blown tyrant, dar ii persecuta pe galileeni si se bucura de puterea si gloria acumulata.
In ultimul rand, sfarsitul romanului este fenomenal. Este descrisa moartea imparatului. O moarte pe care chiar el recunoaste este unica, pentru ca isi incheie viata cu un discurs asupra-i, lucru nemaifacut de vreun conducator al Romei.
Nu pot recomanda suficient aceasta carte, ORICUI, TUTUOR !
Imi plac romanele istorice, tocmai pentru ca pot face o comparatie intre adevar si reinterpretarea autorului. Sa extrag esenta literara prin efectuarea diferentei intre fictiune si factualitate. Insa Iulian mi-a conferit o dorinta de ignoranta. Daca viata imparatului s-a desfasurat altfel decat in modul descris in acest roman, nici nu vreau sa admit adevarul ca realitate, caci pana la urma si fictiunea este felul sau de realitate.
Iulian nu este doar povestea unei vieti de imparat. Este povestea unei sfasieri a timpului. Iulian Apostatul a fost ultimul imparat roman care sa se inchine zeilor pagani, ai romei. Unchiul sau, Constantin cel Mare, a adoptat religia crestina ca religie oficiala a casei imperiale, cu cateva decenii inainte de nasterea nepotului, insa in Roma vechii zei continuau sa fie venerati, desi adeptii erau adesea persecutati. Iulian este introdus ca un potential pretendent al tronului imperial, detinut in anul 345 de Constantius al II-lea. Pasionat de filosofie, si de cultura elenista singurul lui obiectiv este sa ramana in viata.
Evenimente fortuite in viata tanarului, il propulseaza mai intai in pozitia de Cezar al Galiei, iar apoi, datorita talentului militar, in pozitia de Imparat la Romei. De fiecare data , Iulian accepta sub aparenta dorinta inocenta de a ramane in viata. Romanul infatiseaza perfect efectul de corupere al puterii. Dintr-un copil slab, fara aspiratii mai mari decat cele de sihastrie, ajunge un imparat puternic, abil :" Nu sunt eu Alexandru cel reintors pentru a termina marea lucrare de a aduce Rasaritului barbar adevarul din Grecia? "
Gore Vidal structureaza romanul pe baza unei corespondente intre doi filozofi, apropiati ai lui Iulian, ce intreprind scrierea unei biografii a imparatului, bazata pe memoriile pe care acesata si-le a notat spre sfarsitul vietii. Exista astfel o dubla relatare asupra evenimentelor. Perspectiva lui Iulian rareori este obiectiva, dar este completata de la fel de subiectiva perspectiva a filozofilor.
Un punct central al romanului este divergenta religioasa, ce a si adus moartea imparatului. Momentul in care tanarul este convins de credinta sa pagana, mi-a amintit teribil de Star Wars, trilogia lui Anakin. Vidal creeaza un punct de dezbatere bine conturat in privinta celor doua religii. Ridica problema alegerii unui singur popor, revizuirea bibliei, diferentei intre cei doi Dumnezei, cel veterotestamentar si neotestamentar s.a.m.d.
Pe alocuri (inevitabil pentru mine sa nu fac comparatia asta) imi aducea aminte de personajul lui Frank Underwood, din cauza stilului de ascedere sociala, aparent nevinovata, dar revelata cu ajutorul celor doi naratori. Iulian nu devine full-blown tyrant, dar ii persecuta pe galileeni si se bucura de puterea si gloria acumulata.
In ultimul rand, sfarsitul romanului este fenomenal. Este descrisa moartea imparatului. O moarte pe care chiar el recunoaste este unica, pentru ca isi incheie viata cu un discurs asupra-i, lucru nemaifacut de vreun conducator al Romei.
Nu pot recomanda suficient aceasta carte, ORICUI, TUTUOR !
April 2, 2017
A cualquier lector al que le gusten las novelas históricas le recomiendo sin duda leer este libro. A veces nos hacemos unas ideas preconcebidas que no tienen nada que ver con la realidad. Había pasado por mis manos este libro en varias ocasiones y siempre lo había dejado apartado por la absurda creencia que presuponía que su autor no me iba a gustar pensando que iba a tener un estilo de escritura "demasiado académico" craso error por mi parte. Al final decidí darle una oportunidad y al menos iniciar la lectura para ver que me parecía . Me he encontrado con un libro maravilloso escrito de forma brillante por Gore Vidal en el que da vida y luz a un emperador no muy conocido ya que como ocurre tantas veces en la historia los perdedores siempre son olvidados. Juliano fue sobrino de Constantino el grande este si muy conocido por ser el que hizo religión oficial al cristianismo. Juliano intentó revertir esta situación cuando alcanzó el poder y volver a imponer al helenismo como religión principal pero su intento fracasó y esto ha echo que su figura quedara sepultada por la historia. El libro está escrito a 3 voces narrativas en las figuras de Juliano y de los filosofos Prisco y Libanio que sirven de contrapunto al emperador y hacen muy amena la narración. Sin duda este libro tiene muchos puntos en común con Yo Claudio por la semenjanza en la vida de los dos emperadores protagonistas pero a mi este me parece mas accesible en su lectura que el de Graves. El primer 5 estrellas de este 2017 en mis lecturas.
December 22, 2021
Es una lectura que cualquier persona con intereses históricos pronto se dará cuenta que tiene mucho que enseñar. No solo por las citas históricas a la que hace referencia de autores coetáneos a Juliano, si no por el contenido en normas y usos de la sociedad romana. Normas que me han dejado
muchas lagunas que gustaría seguir ahondando. Indirectamente me ha llamado también la atención que esta forma epistolar de los escritos de Juliano eran la habitual en su momento. Supongo que era la forma más fácil de comunicar hechos.
Con respecto al contenido, si ya en nuestros días seguimos sorprendiéndonos de los atropellos causados por casi cualquier religión, no me imagino como podían sentirse de impotentes los seguidores de los dioses clásicos ante el avance y comportamiento de la nueva religión. Por su puesto que el lector pronto se da cuenta que en sus escritos Juliano no hace auto crítica de
los mismos sin sentidos de sus dioses del olimpo ni de los sacrificios de sus seguidores. Más o menos las mismos que la nueva religión.
Si os gusta la historia, os recomiendo su lectura. A mi me ha abierto nuevos horizontes históricos que aún no sé cuando tendré tiempo para iniciar.
muchas lagunas que gustaría seguir ahondando. Indirectamente me ha llamado también la atención que esta forma epistolar de los escritos de Juliano eran la habitual en su momento. Supongo que era la forma más fácil de comunicar hechos.
Con respecto al contenido, si ya en nuestros días seguimos sorprendiéndonos de los atropellos causados por casi cualquier religión, no me imagino como podían sentirse de impotentes los seguidores de los dioses clásicos ante el avance y comportamiento de la nueva religión. Por su puesto que el lector pronto se da cuenta que en sus escritos Juliano no hace auto crítica de
los mismos sin sentidos de sus dioses del olimpo ni de los sacrificios de sus seguidores. Más o menos las mismos que la nueva religión.
Si os gusta la historia, os recomiendo su lectura. A mi me ha abierto nuevos horizontes históricos que aún no sé cuando tendré tiempo para iniciar.
February 28, 2010
Julian is historical fiction masquerading as an posthumously annotated autobiography of Constantine's nephew (successor as emperor to elder cousin Constantius, circa 350 CE). In a way, Vidal makes his own critique on p. 436, writing, “Traditionally the reporting of speeches in historical texts is not meant to be literal…. Yet here is Julian… already altering the text. History is idle gossip about a happening whose truth is lost the instant it has taken place. I offer you this banality for what it is: the truth!” (Emphasis in the original.)
I find quotes like this to be striking in such twisted meta-contexts. This book's structure cannot be easily ignored. Here we have a twice-framed story (Vidal writing a novel in which two philosopher-contemporaries eulogize and discuss publication of journal and memoir material that they have copied but which are ultimately to be suppressed). Why do this? One possibility is that Vidal means for the reader to consider history critically, as a series of competing points of view which, like all claims for objective "truth," carries within itself the flaws of its recorders.
If so, Vidal really has fun with the conceit, breaking the fourth wall of his various frames repeatedly. For example, at page 158, after claiming to quote first Pindar (“Happy is he who, having seen these rights, goes below the hollow earth…”) and then Sophocles (‘Sophocles described initiates as “Thrice-happy mortals, who having seen those rites depart for Hades….”), Vidal as Julian coyly writes, “I quote from memory. (Note to secretary: Correct quotations, if they are wrong.)” Vidal wrote this (if one can believe the author's own mischievious valedictory which he places in lieu of his own character's dating at the bottom of the last page) between 1959 and 1964, a time long before readers could validate literary quotes through a simple web search.
Since this is the first Vidal book I've actually read, I don't know if the author is prone to this kind of thing. I selected this book to start with both because I enjoy Roman history and because a consensus of friends familiar with Vidal and various reviews has it that Julian is the best of his many works. It's not bad, humorous in spots, exciting in others, but fairly rambling throughout. If the "quest for truth" theme had been consistently and progressively explored (as it frequently is early on not only via the narrative structure but in ongoing antithesis of Christian theology and Platonic philosophy/Greek pantheism), the book might have cohered better. As it is, once Julian accedes (by virtual accident) to the throne and is then persuaded to become the next Alexander and conquer Persia, things go a bit awry.
Don't misunderstand my complaint. I know that this is a pseudo-autobiography, and that people's lives tend to be untidy collections of random events. However, with no unifying mystery (e.g., who killed Julian, which arises midway through the first third and then returns only at the end), theme (e.g., what is truth, which peppers the first half of the book), or argument (e.g., how should we in our era view religion, which crops up in the first half of the last third of the book), the story frequently drifts and repeats itself.
Vidal can sometimes use his character's voice to make stark observations, as at page 301, when newly-anointed emperor Julian soaks his closest advisers from his vast bath-pool and then immediately considers the sources of corruption:
Christian readers, even those without a fundamentalist bent, might find Vidal's hectoring through reformer/anti-Christian-crusader Julian a bit tough to take after awhile. A typical example of this occurs at page 86, where Vidal (quoting Julian quoting magician/Mithraist/charlatan/guru Maximus):
Ah, well. At the end of the day, I suppose the book Julian turns out to be good -- for its fourth century Roman history and attempt to explore the psychology of a ruler who had he lived a longer life, might have made our Western world a very different place. But it's not great, and great is what I was looking for. I suppose I'll come back to another work by Vidal later (before I knew any of his titles, my vague impression of Gore Vidal was as a Truman Capote-style sensationalist with great hair). However, as I've got a few things on my nightstand ahead, I see no need to rush.
I find quotes like this to be striking in such twisted meta-contexts. This book's structure cannot be easily ignored. Here we have a twice-framed story (Vidal writing a novel in which two philosopher-contemporaries eulogize and discuss publication of journal and memoir material that they have copied but which are ultimately to be suppressed). Why do this? One possibility is that Vidal means for the reader to consider history critically, as a series of competing points of view which, like all claims for objective "truth," carries within itself the flaws of its recorders.
If so, Vidal really has fun with the conceit, breaking the fourth wall of his various frames repeatedly. For example, at page 158, after claiming to quote first Pindar (“Happy is he who, having seen these rights, goes below the hollow earth…”) and then Sophocles (‘Sophocles described initiates as “Thrice-happy mortals, who having seen those rites depart for Hades….”), Vidal as Julian coyly writes, “I quote from memory. (Note to secretary: Correct quotations, if they are wrong.)” Vidal wrote this (if one can believe the author's own mischievious valedictory which he places in lieu of his own character's dating at the bottom of the last page) between 1959 and 1964, a time long before readers could validate literary quotes through a simple web search.
Since this is the first Vidal book I've actually read, I don't know if the author is prone to this kind of thing. I selected this book to start with both because I enjoy Roman history and because a consensus of friends familiar with Vidal and various reviews has it that Julian is the best of his many works. It's not bad, humorous in spots, exciting in others, but fairly rambling throughout. If the "quest for truth" theme had been consistently and progressively explored (as it frequently is early on not only via the narrative structure but in ongoing antithesis of Christian theology and Platonic philosophy/Greek pantheism), the book might have cohered better. As it is, once Julian accedes (by virtual accident) to the throne and is then persuaded to become the next Alexander and conquer Persia, things go a bit awry.
Don't misunderstand my complaint. I know that this is a pseudo-autobiography, and that people's lives tend to be untidy collections of random events. However, with no unifying mystery (e.g., who killed Julian, which arises midway through the first third and then returns only at the end), theme (e.g., what is truth, which peppers the first half of the book), or argument (e.g., how should we in our era view religion, which crops up in the first half of the last third of the book), the story frequently drifts and repeats itself.
Vidal can sometimes use his character's voice to make stark observations, as at page 301, when newly-anointed emperor Julian soaks his closest advisers from his vast bath-pool and then immediately considers the sources of corruption:
“Then I was alarmed. In just this way are monsters born. First, the tyrant plays harmless games: splashes senators in the bath, serves wooden food to dinner guests, plays practical jokes; and no matter what he says and does, everyone laughs and flatters him, finds witty his most inane remarks. Then the small jokes begin to pall. One day he finds it amusing to rape another man’s wife, as the husband watches, or the husband as the wife looks on, or to torture them both, or to kill them. When the killing begins, the emperor is no longer a man but a beast, and we have had too many beasts already on the throne of the world.”While this is no more than an illustrative way of citing the cliche that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it was still fairly poignant.
Christian readers, even those without a fundamentalist bent, might find Vidal's hectoring through reformer/anti-Christian-crusader Julian a bit tough to take after awhile. A typical example of this occurs at page 86, where Vidal (quoting Julian quoting magician/Mithraist/charlatan/guru Maximus):
"The Christians wish to replace our beautiful legends with the police record of a reforming Jewish rabbi. Out of this unlikely material they hope to make a final synthesis of all the religions ever known. They now appropriate our feast days. They transform local deities into saints. They borrow from our mystery rites, particularly those of Mithras…. I betray no secret of Mithras when I tell you that we, too, partake of a symbolic meal, recalling the words of the prophet Zarathustra, who said to those who worshipped the One God – and Mithras, ‘He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.’ That was spoken six centuries before the Nazarene.”A little of this makes for fascinating historical context to Julian (the Apostate). A bit more of this threatens to become preachy. But unfortunately this book is so chock-full of Christian theological bashing, ridicule of 4th century Christian personal habits and corrupt practices, and self-acknowledged ad hominem attack (Christians are Galileans, churches are charnel houses, priests are greedy exploiters of their parishioners, etc.) that Vidal makes even an anti-religious sot like me start to feel sorry for them. I guess I'm more tolerant than I thought.
Ah, well. At the end of the day, I suppose the book Julian turns out to be good -- for its fourth century Roman history and attempt to explore the psychology of a ruler who had he lived a longer life, might have made our Western world a very different place. But it's not great, and great is what I was looking for. I suppose I'll come back to another work by Vidal later (before I knew any of his titles, my vague impression of Gore Vidal was as a Truman Capote-style sensationalist with great hair). However, as I've got a few things on my nightstand ahead, I see no need to rush.
November 23, 2023
Δυο παγανιστές φιλόσοφοι, ο Λιβάνιος και ο Πρίσκος, προσπαθούν να αντιδράσουν στην απόφαση του αυτοκράτορα Θεοδόσιου να καταργήσει όλες τις άλλες θρησκείες πλην του χριστιανισμού. Στην προσπάθειά τους αυτή επικαλούνται τον Ιουλιανό, τον τελευταίο αυτοκράτορα που προσπάθησε να επαναφέρει την παλαιά θρησκεία (κι έφαγε το κεφάλι του) και ξαναθυμούνται τα έργα του και τον πολυτάραχο βίο του. Ένα βίο άγνωστο στους περισσότερους θα έλεγα , καθώς μάλλον εστιάζουμε στη σύντομη χρονικά βασιλεία του και στην αποτυχημένη θρησκευτική μεταρρύθμισή του και πιθανότατα αγνοούμε ότι λάτρευε τη φιλοσοφία σε σημείο να κουβαλάει στις εκστρατείες τη βιβλιοθήκη του και κυρίως ότι ήταν στρατιωτική ιδιοφυΐα. Κι αν αναρωτιέστε αν εν τέλει είχε ενδιαφέρον η ζωή του του Ιουλιανού, ούτε φαντάζεστε πόσο...
Στα περισσότερα βιβλία, κακά τα ψέματα, επιθυμείς να φτάσεις γρήγορα στο τέλος, ειδικά εάν υπάρχει και κάποιο μυστήριο. Το σ��γκεκριμένο όμως είναι από τα λίγα που, ίσως κι επειδή γνωρίζεις πού θα καταλήξει, δεν θες να τελειώσει. One of a kind, που λένε και στο χωριό μου, πρόκειται για αριστούργημα. Δεν είναι πολύ εύκολο σε κάποια σημεία να προχωρήσεις γρήγορα, κάπου η φιλοσοφία και οι θρησκείες κουράζουν λίγο, στο σύνολό του το βιβλίο όμως σε μαγεύει. Ο τρόπος αφήγησης με τους δύο ηλικιωμένους και τα σχόλιά τους είναι πολύ ευρηματικός και το διαφοροποιεί από παρόμοια μυθιστορήματα. Προσωπικά το θεωρώ κλασικό και είναι κρίμα που δεν είναι πιο ευρέως γνωστό. Ίδια τύχη με τον ήρωά του και το βιβλίο και μάλλον ίδια και η αιτία...
Στα περισσότερα βιβλία, κακά τα ψέματα, επιθυμείς να φτάσεις γρήγορα στο τέλος, ειδικά εάν υπάρχει και κάποιο μυστήριο. Το σ��γκεκριμένο όμως είναι από τα λίγα που, ίσως κι επειδή γνωρίζεις πού θα καταλήξει, δεν θες να τελειώσει. One of a kind, που λένε και στο χωριό μου, πρόκειται για αριστούργημα. Δεν είναι πολύ εύκολο σε κάποια σημεία να προχωρήσεις γρήγορα, κάπου η φιλοσοφία και οι θρησκείες κουράζουν λίγο, στο σύνολό του το βιβλίο όμως σε μαγεύει. Ο τρόπος αφήγησης με τους δύο ηλικιωμένους και τα σχόλιά τους είναι πολύ ευρηματικός και το διαφοροποιεί από παρόμοια μυθιστορήματα. Προσωπικά το θεωρώ κλασικό και είναι κρίμα που δεν είναι πιο ευρέως γνωστό. Ίδια τύχη με τον ήρωά του και το βιβλίο και μάλλον ίδια και η αιτία...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 610 reviews