I have always wanted to read this book ever since I read about Julian the Apostate, but never quite got around to it. When a friend bought a copy at a local second-hand bookshop my friend kindly allowed me to read it before he got to it — thanks Wayne! So now it is done, and it is every bit as good as I thought it would be.

Many of the comments about this book on Goodreads suggest I am not alone in liking this book; some quibble about the conceits Vidal uses (I'm not quite sure why, but to be critical (if that's the right word) of his 'modern' stance in his comments, or the comments he places in his characters mouths seems to me to be missing the point). First of all this is a Novel; and within that category, it is an Historical Novel. Obviously, therefore, it is a work of Fiction; but that does not mean that the History part is fiction. Part of the brilliance of Vidal comes in his presentation of multiple points of view about the same events — the inference is that all history is 'biased' but not necessarily invalid: just multiple. Within this structure Vidal presents vying attitudes to important political decisions.

The 'book' starts at about the time the Spanish Roman Emperor Theodosius I's 380/1 CE Edict that Christianity, and only Christianity, would be the only State region (this is some 17 years after Julians death/murder). The compilers of Julian's 'memoir' and notes (Priscus and Libanus) tell us that they wish to publish these works in order to honour and perhaps perpetuate Julian's legacy. We know from the beginning how it is all going to end, so from this perspective, Vidal uses the 'historical facts' to regale us with an insight as to what life in that refined section of Roman Society was like: powerful, paranoid, murderous, dangerous, mistrustful, duplicitous, etc. On this level the novel is astonishingly effective.

While the historical details are precise and very well researched, it would help to know that the theological debates current during this turbulent time were very real power struggles, and their effect on the future history of the West is pivotal. When Constantine moved Rome to Byzantium ca 323 CE, rebuilt and renamed Constantinople, he also expressed a preference for Christianity as a unifying religion (as opposed to the more popular (at least among the Military) Persian Mithraism) and the Christians saw this as the opportunity par excellence to establish themselves as powerbrokers. The 325 Council of Nicaea came up with the first version of the Nicaean Creed Christians adhere to (more or less) but the wording is comparatively scant (a more complete version is produced at the First Council of Constantinople ca. 381 CE).

Constantine's acceptance of Christianity did not result in his imposing it on all his subjects — it is known to historians that other forms of worship were also allowed in Constantinople — and in any case there were as well many (dozens) of 'variations' of Christianity around at the time. The Arius/Athanasius controversy on the nature of Jesus was perhaps the most contentious. Athanasius' view predominated at Nicaea, and Arius banished; but Constantine wanted a reconciliation. Athanasius refused to compromise, but Constantine was prepared to forgive, and Arius was to be reinstated. It was while Arius was on his way in the palace to receive his reprieve that he suddenly (literally) falls ill and dies (many believed poisoned). On Constantine's death, when his son Constantius II becomes Emperor in the East, Constantius prefers the Arian doctrine, and he has Athanasius banished (he finds refuge in the West). Thus during Constantius' 24-year reign, the only true Christian belief in the East was Arian. It is in this environment that Julian finds himself.

It is all the public and bitter (and possibly even murderous) argumentations that contribute to Julian's cynicism; and his continuous actual and implied criticisms are deftly interspersed throughout the novel. Julian's preference for the 'old ways', particularly of the Greek philosophers and their approach to learning. The Christians' denial of the existence of the Greek and Roman gods makes Julian refer to them as atheists; bishops who destroy the old temples are 'barbarians', and their churches 'charnel-houses', etc. While Julian's anti-Christian stance is historical, it is not true that Vidal therefore believes that the old gods and old beliefs are a valid alternative, nor does he endorse them: indeed the sub-text right throughout is that they, too, are deficient; the rituals smack of superstitious drivel; the number of cattle and other animals killed by Julian in his acts of 'appeasement' is astonishingly large and appalling; and ultimately, despite all this, even Julian's gods desert him…

What does emerge out of all of this, however, is an astonishingly moving composite portrait of Julian as a person one has grown to love, with all his faults and foibles. Vidal's comments, mostly indirectly, on power and its uses and abuses finds comfortable location within the scheme of things — and they are comments that apply always in politics, so 'relevant' to today as much as to the 4th century CE. Some nice, chilling touches at the end are the Christian 'justification' of Julian's killing, and the introduction of one of Libanus' pupils, John Chrysostom (the 'golden mouthed' orator) who will later give a series of orations/lectures against the Jews wherein it is believed the first articulation of the idea of Jews as 'Christ killers' is made). Meanwhile, Athanasius 'wins out' and with the help of the West ('pope' Damasus I, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome) takes over and stains forever the core teachings of the Church with its particular colours. Even so, Arian beliefs continue for quite some time, and can still be found in Unitarian and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs today… But these are 'asides'…

All the above is available to the reader in clear, limpid prose that is easy, and a pleasure to read. This book is indeed a masterpiece.

I had high hopes for this novel, especially given the fascinating setting, intriguing historical figures and highly acclaimed, iconoclastic author.

Let's start with the obvious problem. The story is subverted by vitriolic rants. As an example of the typical diatribe, Gore Vidal's Julian describes Christianity as "evil", a "cancer" bringing "division, cruelty, superstition". In a similar vein, the plot inventions to highlight Christian hypocrisy are hardly subtle. In one example, a character describes himself as a "good Christian" because he prays for the soul of someone he betrayed and murdered. Such contrivances are as sophisticated as propaganda. Unfortunately, Vidal's anti-Christian agenda also detracts from the historical accuracy of the novel. For example, the argument that Christianity copied substantially from Mithraism is highly debatable at best and Vidal places a surprising amount of credence in this rather speculative area of investigation. The greatest irony of all is that much of the book reads like a grating sermon. Gore Vidal needs to respect his audience, not preach at them.

On a further stylistic note, the decision to present the novel in the style of a historical manuscript from the perspective of Julian, Libanius and Priscus has its advantages and disadvantages. It does lend an element of authenticity and the added narrative perspectives flesh out areas where a single character's insight may be either limited or biased. What is lost is proximity and cohesiveness, especially since the narrative voice of Priscus or Libanius did not differ enough to justify adding a third commentator. I thought the description of the death of Julian, which should have been the peak of both emotional and dramatic intensity suffered in particular.

While an atheist would love this book, someone simply interested in historical fiction will find the above-mentioned problems unpalatable at times. A philosopher will also have difficulties as, apart from an anti-Christian reaction, Gore Vidal adds little else in the way of edifying philosophy.

The idea of the unreliable narrator was driven home in high school when we read The Great Gatsby, but Gore Vidal had not one, but three unreliable narrators in this story about Flavius Claudius Julianus, or Julian the Apostate, the last gasp of Roman paganism before Christianity quashed it. Libanius, a philosopher and rhetorician and friend of Julian, wants to publish the late emperor's memoirs, and seeks the help of Priscus, a teacher and companion of Julian. Julian's "memoir" is interspersed with additions and corrections from the two old men, which helps Vidal project an interesting picture of a complex man and emperor.

At times slow, yet there was quite a bit of wit and humor, as well as some poignant passages as well. This is certainly a good book for anyone interested in the time period, the man, or the accession of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

very readable and easy to read fictionalized life of Julian the Apostate. the historical asides especially in the conversations among and with the Greeks give you a deeper insights on the times and how people thought. The battles and the behaviors of armies are described well though the evolution of Julian as a warrior is not covered well.

Gore Vidal è un genio, e questo romanzo è un miracolo.

Nell’ultimo mese sono riuscito, grazie alla prosa formidabile dell’autore statunitense, a vivere l’atmosfera del IV secolo, entrando nel corpo e nei pensieri di Giuliano Augusto, l’ultimo imperatore della famiglia di Costantino.

Gli ambienti del romanzo, diversissimi e vari tra loro, sono plastici e profondi, si ha sempre l’impressione di vivere le vicende ‘da dentro’, complice anche l’espediente narrativo dell’autobiografia.

I riferimenti culturali sono colti e mai decontestualizzati, e il pensiero di fondo del romanzo, pur senza addentrarsi mai troppo nei misteri (è il caso di dirlo!) della religione e della filosofia, è comunque profondo e ricco di spunti, che personalmente mi hanno portato ad ulteriori approfondimenti (in primo luogo sulle opere di Giuliano stesso) e riflessioni.

L’unico difetto, se se ne deve trovare uno, è che l’ultima delle tre sezioni risulta narrativamente più lineare delle altre due, dal momento che riguarda molti aspetti amministrativi e militari; l’autore riesce però con vari espedienti a smorzare quei momenti che altrimenti sarebbero risultati molto pesanti.

Un romanzo consigliatissimo, quindi, specie a chi sia interessato alla storia delle religioni o alla tarda antichità.

In part, I am giving this book 5 stars because I enjoyed it so much more than the previous book by Gore Vidal that I finished previously titled Creation. While both books were in roughly, the same period of history, this book was so much easier to follow. It has the benefit of focusing primarily on a single major character, who has the good sense to die at the end of the book, thus bringing the book to a, quick conclusion. The book also uses the common technique of switching back-and-forth from a different viewpoint often with significantly different observations about what happened and why.

And I must admit that as an atheist, the anti-Christianity attitude of the main character and the reasons for that disparagement were particularly intriguing reading material for me.

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.

Senās Grieķijas periods mani vienmēr ir interesējis daudz vairāk nekā Romas periods, bet šis ir vienkārši lielisks vēsturiskais romāns par velīno Romu īsi pirms sabrukuma, kad to jau no visām pusēm apdraud barbari. Romāna centrā ir imperators Juliāns, kas vairāk pazīstams kā Juliāns Atkritējs, kurš savā īsajā valdīšanas laikā centās atgriezties pie senās ticības, atsakoties no kristietības. Vidals, protams, portretē Juliānu ļoti pozitīvi, tai pat laikā iezīmējot, cik veltīgi jau no paša sākuma ir viņa centieni atgriezties pie senajiem dieviem, jo to laiks jau sen ir pagājis.
Lieliska valoda, elegants stāstīšanas stils, neviena garlaicīga nodaļa. Iesaku.

Julian is a fictional biography of a real-life Roman emperor. Putting aside all questions of historical accuracy, this is an interesting account of Julian. However, Vidal chooses to tell the tale in an unusual format. The vast majority of the novel is supposed to be Julian's memoir. The remainder is a correspondence--between two people who knew the emperor--that comments on the autobiography. While this narrative technique provides some delightful moments of humor, overall, it detracts from the book.

Historical fiction at its best.
For those who know Gore Vidal as a merely satirical writer, this book will be a great surprise, whereas those readers who are already acquainted with his American saga (from "Burr" to "Washington D.C.") will find in it further proof of Vidal's undeniable talent.

Julian is still one of the most neglected Roman emperors, the one and only survivor of Constantine the Great's family after his heir Constantius had them all slaughtered to take over the Empire.
Julian's life is spared simply because he's but a shy, innocuous youth whose only aim is to become a philosopher, so that Constantius decides to share the power with him - and turn him into a puppet to serve his secret purposes. Julian seems to be utterly uninterested in political matters though: what he really lusts for is knowledge and wisdom, achieved by means of the weird rituals and ceremonies of the ancient religion. He doesn't feel any sympathy for the triumphing Christianity of his time, ravaged by struggles and intrigues between the rival sects. When the emperor dies without any heir Julian is raised to the throne; the young philosopher becomes the only master of the crumbling Roman empire and engages in a desperate attempt to bring the world back to its glorious pagan past.

Christianity is in fact getting rid of all remnants of the old culture and religion - an unbearable loss for Julian, who surrounds himself with a crowd of philosophers, priests, pseudo-magicians and Persian escapés, in a last desperate attempt to restore the pagan tradition of sacrifices and mysteries. Alas, the world has chosen a different path. When he sets off for a campaign against Persia, craving for fame and glory, the future he gets is not the one he has in mind... in the end, Christianity takes its ultimate revenge.

This brilliant novel is the result of a long, thorough research. The result is a very good biography as well as an enticing story of power and tragedy whose the protagonist is the doomed hero of a dying world, seen as the cradle of knowledge and civilization. Nevertheless, Julian is a presumptuous youth blinded by delusions of grandeur, a student of whom so many parasites take advantage; he's also a good emperor, coping with the damages inflicted by decades of war and chaos.
Vidal writes about a century of spiritual and social mayhem, the dreadful transition from the ancient world to the Middle Ages; an era we guiltily tend to relegate on the margins of our historical knowledge, whereas much of our so-called modern attitude toward politics and religion is rooted in the events of those dark, remote days.

The recent death of Gore Vidal reminded me I'd read his historical novel about Julian, the Roman Emperor known as "The Apostate" because he renounced Christianity and tried to bring about a pagan revival. Julian's character is very intelligent, witty, and self-aware; a reclusive scholar who suddenly finds himself appointed to repel a barbarian invasion of Gaul and does surprisingly well at it. His troops mutiny and declare him emperor. He marches on Constantinople and shocks the bishops by renouncing Christianity.

If you're a Christian, you won't much like this book. Gore Vidal was an outspoken atheist.

I have to say, as someone who knows a lot about Roman history, I couldn't find any hitorical mistakes in it.

I saw a documentary about Gore Vidal last year in which he claimed that Julian was the novel he was most pleased with. So I thought I would give it a go as I had enjoyed his 'Narratives of a Golden Age' series and wanted to try something else. It was okay as a historical novel, but felt a bit too long.

The book is a supposed autobiography of the 4th Century Roman Emperor Julian. It is being edited by two of his contemporaries, Libanius and Priscus, who provide notes to each other throughout the book, allowing for outside commentary and a fair few witty/bitchy asides which read very much like Gore Vidal's own voice. This does give a lighter side to the story, which, while it is essentially a look at Julian's eventual and rather lucky rise to power, followed by the campaigns he undertook in Persia as Emperor, is in fact about the last attempt to prevent Christianity from overtaking the Hellenic gods as the empire's accepted religion. Vidal takes great pleasure in pointing out how many of the defining ideas of Christianity were simply lifted from other religions or mythical stories, along with the in-fighting that has forever defined the different factions within the Christian religion.

Julian was popular with his army (who were pretty much all he knew of his subjects during his reign), and appeared to be well-liked in general. He did seem to have an Alexander Complex however, which was his downfall, along with his refusal to see the inevitable, meaning that all his efforts to re-establish the Roman gods were in vain.

Vidal lists a partial bibliography at the beginning of the book, which took five years of research and writing to complete. As such it is a more literary historical novel, and it is more about politics than battles, but it isn't heavy going, and is quite enjoyable. Not, however, my favourite book by him, so far.