"Galileo ¡has vencido!" (últimas palabras tradicionalmente atribuidas al emperador Juliano, supuestamente pronunciadas antes de expirar).

Jamás imaginé que resultaría todo un deleite emprender la lectura de una novela histórica, máxime, cuando el sujeto de la obra resulta ser un cuasi desconocido emperador romano. No me malinterpreten, nada tengo contra la historia, más bien, soy un completo enamorado de ella y, con mayor razón, si ella hace referencia a la antigua Roma, una de mis más grandes pasiones desde mis tiempos de adolescente.

Concluí la lectura de este libro el viernes y estuve dudando acerca de la manera de encarar esta reseña y, considero que mi duda resultaba legítima por cuanto la maestría con la que Gore Vidal encaró la narración no solo me dejó gratamente sorprendido, sino que hubieron partes que me llevaron hasta las lágrimas de risa. Empezaré, valga la redundancia, por el principio, es decir, presentando al protagonista de esta obra: un, como lo dije antes, cuasi desconocido emperador romano, empero, uno cuya vida nada tiene que envidiar a los emperadores más famosos.

Flavio Claudio Juliano llegó al trono merced a circunstancias fortuitas y luego de haber sobrevivido a toda una vida de férreo control por parte del duro estado romano. Sobrino de Constantino, sobrevivió a la matanza de todos los varones de la familia de los Flavios llevada a cabo por Constancio (sucesor de Constantino); dedicado al estudio de la filosofía, descubrió su pasión por el helenismo y, como indica el título con el que pasó a la posteridad, apostató del cristianismo y potenció la fe tradicional en lo que él llamaba "los verdaderos dioses". Nombrado César, inició una rebelión sin esperanza de triunfo, cuando quiso la Fortuna que Constancio muriera víctima de una fuerte fiebre y, al ser el último varón de los Flavios y heredero legítimo del trono romano, accedió al cargo de emperador. Una muerte fortuita terminó con su obra y sentenció a la religión romana tradicional al ocaso.

Lo primero que debo decir es que Gore Vidal encara el libro de manera epistolar, a tres voces. Si bien durante el curso de la narración se da voz a diversos personajes, el peso de contar la historia recae sobre tres personajes: el propio Juliano, y los filósofos Prisco y Libanio. Cabe destacar que los tres narradores son personajes históricos que existieron en realidad y que se relacionaron entre sí, tal como se muestra en el libro, si bien con pequeñas diferencias que no alteran el espíritu de la obra. La narración se sustenta tanto en las cartas que intercambian Prisco y Libanio - en las que no solo observamos los sentimientos de éstos hacia el protagonista sino también nos permite contar con un pantallazo completo de ese tiempo - como también los diarios de Juliano. Así tenemos un estilo bastante peculiar. Por una parte, contamos con una narración en primera persona protagonista ya que Juliano relata su vida y sus acciones desde su óptica, así el libro nos relata de primera mano los acontecimientos tal como eran percibidos desde el más alto nivel del poder.

Por otra parte, las cartas de Prisco y Libanio nos permiten percibir los mismos acontecimientos desde otra óptica. Si bien ambos formaban parte del "primer anillo" del emperador, saben cosas que Juliano no percibía o que no tenía manera de saber, dado que fueron cosas que se conocieron ya mucho después de su muerte. Así, tanto Prisco como Libanio nos aportan datos que complementan aquello que nos va narrando Juliano y, así, podemos contar con una visión de conjunto de los acontecimientos que van tejiendo el entramado argumental de la obra. Asimismo, Prisco y Libanio insertan notas a los diarios de Juliano y, algunas de ellas son de un humor insuperable.

Más allá de la calidad incuestionable de la obra y de la maestría nata de Gore Vidal percibo en el libro, sobre todo de las expresiones de Libanio un toque de nostalgia, no, algo mucho más profundo un sentimiento de pérdida y añoranza que no cuenta en español con un vocablo certero que pueda nombrarlo, por lo que recurriré a la lengua portuguesa, este libro rezuma n  saudaden, vocablo luso sin traducción directa pero que indica una añoranza y nostalgia profundas que vienen de lo más recóndito del corazón. n  Saudaden de una época que ya fue y que no volverá. Ello queda patente de las expresiones de Libanio. Me explico.

Juliano fue, por así decirlo, el último emperador "pagano", es decir, el último que no adhirió ni profesó el cristianismo. En este punto deseo realizar una aclaración. Por lo general se cree que Constantino fue quien oficializó el cristianismo como religión del Imperio. Ello no podría resultar más erróneo. Constantino, por influjo de su madre, otorgó a los cristianos la libertad de cultos a través del Edicto de Milán en el año 313 pero no fue más allá, si bien con sus acciones posteriores favoreció notablemente al culto cristiano. Empero, ni siquiera es seguro que hubiera recibido el bautismo. Gore Vidal asegura que sí, ya que es cuanto se desprende del pasaje en que narra la muerte de Constancio diciendo: "...al igual que su padre pidió el bautismo antes de morir". Max Gallo en su excelente novela sobre este emperador también lo asegura pero otros como Adrian Goldsworthy señalan que es dudoso. El cristianismo fue favorecido por Constantino y Constancio pero no oficalizado. La oficialización del cristianismo como religión del Imperio llegó recién con Teodosio I.

Lo narrado en el párrafo anterior resulta capital a los efectos de comprender la razón por la que sostengo que el libro rezuma n  saudaden y es que el reinado de Juliano constituye el último tiempo en el que la cultura helenista clásica intentó sobrevivir antes de ser superada por la cruz. Podría decirse que el reinado de Juliano fue el último asalto antes del golpe de gracia que llegó con el Edicto de Tesalónica del 27 de febrero de 380 que convirtió al cristianismo en la religión oficial del Imperio romano.

A pesar de no compartir sus creencias religiosas, debo decir que Juliano me ha caído bien, tanto que puedo ubicarlo en el tercer puesto de mi podio de emperadores: Augusto el primero, Constantino el segundo y Juliano el tercero. Juliano fue un hombre coherente que vivió de acuerdo a los principios en los que creía y practicó la fe que consideraba la correcta, al menos no usó la máscara de fingir ser cristiano en público y pagano en privado. Empero, debo decir que, para ser el hombre más poderoso del mundo en su tiempo, era tremendamente ingenuo y crédulo, tanto que magos, adivinos y otros hechicero y charalatanes se aprovecharon de él, o más bien, de su fe sincera.

Su tiempo fue un tiempo de cambios definitivos, el mundo tal como era conocido estaba a punto de terminar para dar lugar a otro radicalmente distinto. Su reinado fue como un corredor que implicó la transición de una realidad a la otra. No solo en el aspecto religioso, sino también político, los bárbaros estaban ya a las puertas de Roma y el Imperio de Occidente, otrora todopoderoso tambaleaba y se hallaba agonizando esperando el golpe de gracia que llegó en el año 476.

Si bien la frase que inicia esta reseña es apócrifa pues según he podido consultar empezó a serle atribuida en un tiempo muy posterior a su muerte, puede decirse que encierra algo de verdad. Con su muerte, el helenismo y los cultos tradicionales perdieron a su más ardiente defensor y ya no se presentó otro como él. Puede decirse que el Galileo venció, no solo a raíz del Decreto emitido por Teodosio I sino porque así lo había indicado Él mismo: "...sobre esta roca edificaré mi iglesia, y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán contra ella" (Mateo 16,18).

Con la muerte de Juliano terminó una época, un mundo una cultura, una religión, una fe cediendo el testigo a una nueva. No pude evitar emocionarme con el cierre que da Gore Vidal a esta novela, y termino esta reseña con las palabras con las cuales, por boca de Libanio, da cierre a esta magnífica obra de arte:

"Ha terminado la edad de oro…Mientras tanto, los bárbaros están a las puertas de la civilización: Pero cuando rompan el muro no encontrarán nada valioso que tomar, solo reliquias vacías. Ha desaparecido el espíritu de lo que éramos. Así sea…La luz se fue con Juliano. Ahora no queda otra cosa que dejar que lleguen las tinieblas y esperar un nuevo sol y otro día, nacido del misterio del tiempo y del humano amor a la luz"

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.

A feast for the mind, this book is a memoir of the Roman Emperor Julian, following his life from the insecurity during the ruling years of a killer when he was a child, his love of studying and philosophy, and then becoming an emperor, through to his campaign in Persia, which was to bring an end to his reign. Written superbly, I couldn't help but be fascinated with the subject, and I am very curious about some aspects of Julian's life indeed.

Beautiful and amazing. Curt sentences create evocative language and human characters grumble and squabble and look for truth, which none of them find. You wonder what could have been, but the point is that it never could have. One of my favorites now.

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.

Julian was what i would call a genius, an enlightened monarch,so way ahead of his time, like a Nikola Tesla of our time.

Its painful almost to see such an intelligent , compassionate , resourceful young man dealing with the stupidity, gore and lack of interest for himan life of that era, with his intelligence
He tried unsuccesfully to convince proto christians with facts and philosophy that its not ok to enforce their religion upon everyone by force christians-which were such a unyieldly,troublesome,murderous lot in the IV century AD.

Even though by birth i am a christian , the hypocrisy of christians is enormous in this text and i must confess it has shaken my view on centralized religion.

I am totally ok with democracy and reaching consensus in everything from relationships , state affairs , law ...etc but i find it damn hard to respect what a bunch of people congregated and decided what the customs and traditions are for centuries to come , and enforcing these customs by force (many scriptures which were better suited burned and their writers deemed blasphemous)

Christianity basically didnt bring anything new to the table , its just a mix of local religions continously changed so that it was able to convert all the populations of the empire.

For example even the ritual of drinking wine and eating bread of the saviour was stolen from The Cult of Mithras.

The term of fathers stolen from Zarathustra.

I find it pretty damn disconcerting to follow the customs of a religion that came to be only by using sheer force and dominance over the others and to believe in something that came to be through murder and opportunism not through the sheer truth.

The best parts of the book were Julian's debates with the episcopes over christandom vs hellenistic gods where you can actually see the christians have no spine , no truth , changing everything in order to suit them.

For example publicly rejecting Plato,Homer and other great authors and deeming them the devil , while using their operas in their monasteries and schools in order to educate young people and to make the religion more atteactive.

I can't stand double standards !

The book is great , Julian is a terrific writer , with an outstanding clarity of thoughts.

I got to see the roman society of the IV century AD in its entirety as well as Rome's traiditonal enemies like Germans or Sassanians.

Marvellous work !

“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 قد تفيد 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”.

Come ben si sa, un romanzo storico è ben diverso dalla storia vera e propria. Diamo la libertà allo scrittore di creare un intreccio narrativo quanto più possibile aderente ai fatti storici realmente avvenuti ma gli dobbiamo concedere una visione più personale sull’intimità, i pensieri, le paure dei personaggi. Chi meglio di Gore Vidal, illustre sceneggiatore statunitense, ha le capacità di rendere vivi ed interessanti i personaggi, di creare intorno a loro un alone di una tragicità epica? Vidal ha reso grande un imperatore romano, cui la Storia ha dedicato poche righe, solamente per il fatto di aver voluto ripristinare le divinità pagane a scapito del cristianesimo imperante. Ma nel romanzo di Vidal questo aspetto è sì molto importante e in certi momenti determinante, ma è il Giuliano uomo, filosofo e studioso che emerge innanzitutto. Il Giuliano che si rivelerà abile stratega, forte e coraggioso soldato, ma soprattutto tollerante e umano. Indubbiamente Vidal ha consultato tantissime fonti soprattutto per ricostruire l’ambiente del dopo Costantino con l’apertura alla religione cristiana, e anche per delineare lo svolgimento delle guerre combattute da Giuliano. Azzeccata è stata poi la divisione delle voci narranti: la prima persona con lo stesso Giuliano e lo scambio epistolare tra gli amici Prisco e Libanio. Questa scelta narrativa ha reso la lettura più coinvolgente.

The life and times of a Roman emperor is always interesting. Julian’s reign falls near towards the decline of the Roman Empire, so his triumphs and challenges are rather different from those you might see in Augustus/ Tiberius/ Claudius’ time; even Hadrian’s. By the time Julian came into power the Roman world had turned from Hellenistic to Christian, and there was a dizzying array of the different titles one might be conferred with: Emperor, Caesar, Augustus.

Gore Vidal (what a name!) provides an informative account of Julian’s rise and the fatal Persian campaign, gratefully written in contemporary 20th century language. It is written from the perspective of Julian, Libanius and Priscus, two philosophers who outlive Julian. Vidal has a gift for snark and I find myself laughing in cleverly inserted lines. It was also interesting to read about the religious quarrels of the time; the difference between the Christians/ Galileans and the Jews, and the various interpretations of the nature of the Trinity — was Jesus and God of the same substance, or was Jesus merely a prophet sent by God? — leading to murders between bishops. I realised that I personally enjoyed reading about Julian’s rise to the throne rather than how he maintained power at the throne and the various reforms he introduced to the empire. I suppose this is similar to how we follow people’s engagements and weddings with interest due to the nature of spectacle, or how someone climbed from Country Manager to CEO, rather than what happens afterwards.

What did I learn from Julian? (Everything looks so easy with hindsight) Firstly, the underdog (sometimes) rises. Secondly, do not be too superstitious as magicians can take you in. Thirdly, people might act dishonourably and despicably but it’s water off a duck’s back. As with insults to your face — just have a good comeback. Next, self-delusion can still get you to your goals — and help you sleep better at night. Finally, ambition could kill you — Julian had set many good reforms in place but tragically died due to his haste to become greater than Alexander.

Some excerpts which caught my eye:

“Looking back, I seem to have followed a straight line towards my destiny. I moved from person to person as though each had been deliberately chosen for my instruction. But at the time I had only a pleasurable sense of freedom, nothing more. Nevertheless, the design of my life was taking shape and each wise man I met formed yet another link In the chain which leads towards the ultimate revelation which has been beautifully described as ‘the flight of the alone to the Alone.’”

“I daydreamed about the military life, which was strange, for in those days I seldom thought of anything except philosophy and religion. I suspect I was born a soldier and only ‘made’ a philosopher.”

“Julian’s one flaw: that craving for the vague and incomprehensible which is essentially Asiatic.”

“Despite the barbarism which is slowly extinguishing ‘the light of the world’, we Athenians still pride ourselves on being able to see things as they are. Show us a stone and we see a stone, not the universe. But like so many others nowadays, Julian wanted to believe that man’s life is profoundly more significant than it is. His sickness was the sickness of our age. We want so much not to be extinguished at the end that we will go to any length to make the conjuror tricks for one another simply to obscure the bitter, secret knowledge that it is not our fate to be.”

“Why is it so important to continue after death? We never question the demonstrable fact that before birth we did not exist, so why should we fear becoming once more what we were to begin with?”

“Our reputations change so often and so drastically, reflecting no particular change in us, merely a change in the mood of those who observe us. When things go well, an emperor is loved; badly, hated.”

“I had entered the room a proscribed student. I left it as Caesar and husband. The change was dizzying.”

“We are all in the habit of censuring the great, when in fact ordinary folk are quite as devious and as wilful and as desperate to survive (if not to prevail) as are the great.”

“I never fell into his trap, and he knew that I never would; yet we continued to play the familiar game, rather like those old men one sees int he village who sit hour after her, year after year, playing draughts with one another, making the same moves and countermoves to the end of their lives.”

“‘Nothing in Gaul can be done without me. All responsibility is mine.’ ‘Such is the will of Caesar.’”

“Traitors who prevail are patriots. Usurpers who succeed are divine emperors. Emperors are not made by a few thousand troops in a small provincial city. After all, it is God’s will that raises us up, and it is God’s will that throws us down. Those few soldiers are enough, if it’s meant to be.”

“Not being a hero, my constant interest is the preservation of my own life.”

“I have always said that I acted in self-defence, that I did not want to usurp the throne, that I wanted only to be recognised by Constantius as legitimate Augustus in the West. Yet I must say I find it impossible to describe what I really felt. Only historians can ever be certain of one’s motives!”

“’It’s happened!’ He gasped. Then he did something he had never done before. He dropped on his knees before me, and offered me the letter. ‘This is for you… Augustus.’ I read the first line. Then the words blurred together and I could read no more. ‘Constantius is dead.’ As I said those extraordinary words, the clerks one by one fell to their knees. Then, as in a dream, the room began to fill with people. All knew what had happened. All paid me silent homage for I had, miraculously, with the stopping of one man’s breath, become sole Augustus, Emperor of Rome, Lord of the world. To my astonishment, I wept.”

“It was not easy to know how to behave. Our sort is forever courted by usurpers and asked to join in this or that undertaking. Since no one can know the future, it is quite easy to pick the wrong side.”

“Today, however, after fifty years of mutual loathing, we are quite dependent on one another. Habit is stronger than hate.”

“By the time Constantine, Constantius and the horde of bishops got through with Jesus, little of his original message was left. Every time they hold a synod they move further away from the man’s original teaching. The conception of the triple god is their latest masterpiece.”

“There is nothing so swiftly lost as the public’s memory of a good action. That is why great men insist on putting up monuments to themselves with their deeds carefully recorded, since those they saved will not honour them in life or in death. Heroes must see to their own fame. No one else will.”

“The history of the Roman principate is an interminable pageant of sameness. They are so much alike, these energetic men; only Julian was different.”

Funny bits:

“A sleepless night not only because of the edict but because two cats saw fit to enliven my despair with the noise of lust (only an Egyptian would worship a cat).”

“Maximus also thought that Sosipatra was divine, or at least ‘inhabited from time to time by the spirit of Aphrodite’. Which made her sound rather like an inn. I always found her tedious.”

“I attached to my court for several months one of the most extraordinary bores I have ever known. But I never had the heart to dismiss the man, so he sat with us night after night, ruining all conversation.”

“Aconia’s only interest is her own salvation. She regards religion as a sort of lottery, and if she takes a chance on each of the gods, the law of averages ought to favour her to pick the right one who will save her soul. Though what eternity would want with Aconia Paulina, I don’t know.”

Though it took me a full week to read, this is an excellent piece of historical fiction. Gore Vidal was known for many things. One of those was his historical fiction, it being one of the several ways he examined corruption and militarism in government. He does this brilliantly in Julian.

Julian the Apostate was Emperor of the Roman Empire from 361-363 AD. His attempts to re-establish pagan polytheism and counter political subversion by Christian monotheism were short-lived though they continued to resound for centuries. This fictional account shows how he grew from a child who feared for his life into a philosophy student and then became Emperor against all odds. It was then that militarism overcame him as a means to complete his aims and he was assassinated, after which Christianity became synonymous with the failing empire and then became an empire of its own.

The novel is a fascinating account of life in the fourth century from Rome to Gaul to Constantinople to Persia. It is written as Julian's memoirs so all the political and religious upheaval is seen through his eyes. Interspersed are comments and correspondence between Julian's mentor in philosophy, Libanius (who is attempting to write a biography of the man) and Priscus, Julian's former close compatriot who had the memoir hidden away. These asides open up the story to other viewpoints, a good thing because Julian is in some ways an unreliable narrator.

Having studied this period of history in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, it was wonderful to get inside Julian's mind. I read slowly because philosophy, of which there is plenty from Aristotle to Plato and onward, requires a certain kind of attention. I confess that I skimmed over the many battle scenes but the author does painlessly show Julian's military genius.

If you like ancient history, Julian is not to be missed. The parallels with our time are startling and worrisome.

I'd been fascinated by the life of 4th century Roman emperor Julian since reading Jonathan Kirsch's excellent history of polytheism and monotheism: "God Against the Gods". Julian became Augustus a mere 24 years after the death of Constantine the Great, and set about restoring the worship of the classic pantheon of gods. He reigned for only 2 years as Augustus before dying in Persia, and Christianity quickly resumed its role in the seat of power.

In Julian, Gore Vidal has performed the herculean task of recreating late-antiquity Rome and used available information about Julian's life to construct a biography. Vidal cleverly composes the narrative as Julian's own memoirs that are being edited and commented upon by the Greek chorus of Libanius and Priscus, two philosophers who knew him. They jump in from time to time to provide additional details; the things that Julian forgot or omitted in an effort to make himself look better. They occasionally disagree with him or each other, and in doing so reflect multiple views of events that history is unsure of.

The book does a fantastic job of humanizing its subject, and Julian reads as a real person with natural fears, humor, virtues, ambitions, and flaws. The story spreads over a solid 500 pages, and Vidal uses that space to follow Julian from a childhood of near-misses (being successor to the throne is a life-threatening business), to a youth of Christian instruction turned to fascination with philosophy, and to a young adult who is thrown in the seat of power only to find an unexpected skill for commanding armies. Julian's conversion to the old polytheistic religion is an interesting undercurrent to his political existence, as he tries to hide his new allegiance and clandestine meetings with Hellenists. His superstitions are so pervasive that all events are interpreted in light of the gods' rewards and punishments, and after enough reading one can almost sympathize with the worldview.

I knew Julian must die, as history is already written, but by the end I was wishing that fate could be avoided. It helped that I didn't know the manner of his death in any great detail, so I read in constant fear, not knowing whence his end would come. Reading up afterward, it seems Vidal stated with great certainty a manner of death that history cannot verify with equal conviction. I won't spoil any of that - it's worth reading to find out for yourself.

Julian was a unique and momentous figure in the world's history, and the treatment of him here is excellent.

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).