Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.16 AVERAGE
4.16 AVERAGE
A delightfully readable fictional account of Julian, a nephew of Constantine who, in his very brief 4th-century tenure as Emperor of Rome, attempted to roll back the adoption of Christianity as the religion of the empire. The narrative unfolds as a memoir of Julian, punctuated by the wry epistolary commentary of a Stadtler-and-Waldorfian pair of philosophers, Priscus and Libanius. These two take swipes at one another and at members of Julian’s retinue, while exposing some of Julian’s blind spots and revisionist indulgences.
Vidal’s Julian was something of a polymath, with a deep love for philosophy, a passion for leading armies into battle, and a reverence for the mysteries of the ancient Hellenistic religion. As Vidal constructs Julian’s story, the strain of making room for all of these passions in one man is ultimately what undoes him. Julian (under the influence of a priest/charlatan called Maximus) comes to see himself as the second coming of Alexander, destined to reconquer all the Asiatic lands as far as India. His rash leadership of Persian campaign and his arrogance in the persecution of Christians combine to cost him the loyalty of his Christian generals.
And yet through Julian’s deploring ancient Christianity, Vidal voices harsh critiques of modern Christianity, pointing up the hypocrisies of power-hungry priests and the dangers of too much mingling of religious powers with state administration. Julian is a flawed, overreaching leader who makes some shocking errors in judgment; yet he remains solidly sympathetic, and the editorial force of the book is behind his views, not those of his detractors, who restyled him as Julian the Apostate and carefully controlled the public narrative of his life.
Vidal’s Julian was something of a polymath, with a deep love for philosophy, a passion for leading armies into battle, and a reverence for the mysteries of the ancient Hellenistic religion. As Vidal constructs Julian’s story, the strain of making room for all of these passions in one man is ultimately what undoes him. Julian (under the influence of a priest/charlatan called Maximus) comes to see himself as the second coming of Alexander, destined to reconquer all the Asiatic lands as far as India. His rash leadership of Persian campaign and his arrogance in the persecution of Christians combine to cost him the loyalty of his Christian generals.
And yet through Julian’s deploring ancient Christianity, Vidal voices harsh critiques of modern Christianity, pointing up the hypocrisies of power-hungry priests and the dangers of too much mingling of religious powers with state administration. Julian is a flawed, overreaching leader who makes some shocking errors in judgment; yet he remains solidly sympathetic, and the editorial force of the book is behind his views, not those of his detractors, who restyled him as Julian the Apostate and carefully controlled the public narrative of his life.
This book has a lot going for it - a declining empire, an underdog upstart emperor, lots of palace intrigue, mysticism, and fortune telling. It's about one of the most interesting eras in history, when Christianity was on the rise, but there were still people in influential positions who wished to stymy it, centred around the last pagan emperor of Rome.
I found the most interesting thing about the story, however, was the framing device. The book opens as the correspondence between two old philosophers, Libanius and Priscus, about their dead friend Julian. Libanius wants to write a biography of him, so he asks Priscus for a copy of Julian's secret memoir, written just before his death. The bulk of the story is that (fictitious) memoir, written from the perspective of Julian. Occasionally, Priscus inserts some comment on events, and Libanius inserts his own comments on both the main text and the comments of Priscus. These comments are sparing at first, during Julian's early life, before he met either, growing in frequency as Priscus and Libanius enter times they were directly involved in.
Priscus frequently comments to note things that Julian has conspicuously left out of the memoir, or to provide his own judgement on events and figures that differs from Julian's, or to marvel at the things Julian thought but never let on to himself or Libanius. When the book shifts from composed memoir to field notes, Priscus takes on a much larger role, often having to expand tiny abbreviations into several pages of explanation. At one point, he even notes how Julian paraphrased the speech of a Tribune, while he himself made an exact note of what he said. Finally, after Julian's death, Priscus is the final point of view for what happened - we cannot know what Julian thought as he lay dying. Finally, Libanius is forbidden from publishing, giving us the conceit of this fictitious secret memoir. The overall effect calls to mind the fact that all historical records we have were written for a purpose, and are usually edited to strengthen that purpose as much as possible. We never have the unfiltered truth when looking at a historical document. We must always question and compare everything we read. Done well, that will give us the best look we can have at the ancient world, but it will never be perfect, and always subject to change as we learn more. In terms of the story, we're left to wonder about the perspectives of other characters - what was Constantius thinking as he and Julian prepared for war? Was Maximus sincere about his beliefs, or a con artist like Priscus claims?
The story is suffused with omens, fortunetelling, augury and prophetic dreams. Julian is portrayed as simultaneously credulous of almost anything that could be considered a sign, but at the same time infinitely capable of interpreting anything as favourable to himself. This seems self-reinforcing at first, as Julian rises quickly from junior governor, to capable general, to ruler of the west, to ruler of Rome, to conqueror of Persia, only for it all to come crashing down. In the end, it seems that Priscus' skepticism wins out.
As far as accuracy goes, I have no idea. The only thing that stuck out to me was a reference to Eucalyptus leaves - how did those get to Anatolia?
I found the most interesting thing about the story, however, was the framing device. The book opens as the correspondence between two old philosophers, Libanius and Priscus, about their dead friend Julian. Libanius wants to write a biography of him, so he asks Priscus for a copy of Julian's secret memoir, written just before his death. The bulk of the story is that (fictitious) memoir, written from the perspective of Julian. Occasionally, Priscus inserts some comment on events, and Libanius inserts his own comments on both the main text and the comments of Priscus. These comments are sparing at first, during Julian's early life, before he met either, growing in frequency as Priscus and Libanius enter times they were directly involved in.
Priscus frequently comments to note things that Julian has conspicuously left out of the memoir, or to provide his own judgement on events and figures that differs from Julian's, or to marvel at the things Julian thought but never let on to himself or Libanius. When the book shifts from composed memoir to field notes, Priscus takes on a much larger role, often having to expand tiny abbreviations into several pages of explanation. At one point, he even notes how Julian paraphrased the speech of a Tribune, while he himself made an exact note of what he said. Finally, after Julian's death, Priscus is the final point of view for what happened - we cannot know what Julian thought as he lay dying. Finally, Libanius is forbidden from publishing, giving us the conceit of this fictitious secret memoir. The overall effect calls to mind the fact that all historical records we have were written for a purpose, and are usually edited to strengthen that purpose as much as possible. We never have the unfiltered truth when looking at a historical document. We must always question and compare everything we read. Done well, that will give us the best look we can have at the ancient world, but it will never be perfect, and always subject to change as we learn more. In terms of the story, we're left to wonder about the perspectives of other characters - what was Constantius thinking as he and Julian prepared for war? Was Maximus sincere about his beliefs, or a con artist like Priscus claims?
The story is suffused with omens, fortunetelling, augury and prophetic dreams. Julian is portrayed as simultaneously credulous of almost anything that could be considered a sign, but at the same time infinitely capable of interpreting anything as favourable to himself. This seems self-reinforcing at first, as Julian rises quickly from junior governor, to capable general, to ruler of the west, to ruler of Rome, to conqueror of Persia, only for it all to come crashing down. In the end, it seems that Priscus' skepticism wins out.
As far as accuracy goes, I have no idea. The only thing that stuck out to me was a reference to Eucalyptus leaves - how did those get to Anatolia?
challenging
emotional
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Fantastic- Just an incredibly detailed account of a Roman emperor. Fiction, but a seeming attempt at an honest portrayal. Very human, it brings you into the ancient world and makes you understand the political intrigue. And it explains the character brilliantly, and how his interests/awareness affect his behavior. Really good book- it’s dense, but worth the effort.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Oh, that was great. This book is vivid, satisfying, rich and textured. And never boring! I was worried. But it's perfect. I think it's like Rashomon or Groundhog Day are perfect films; this is a flawless book.
Set in the 4th century CE, this is a biography of Julian (AKA Julian the Apostate), the (last) Roman Emperor who believed in the Olympian gods and rejected Christianity. I had never heard of him, but now I think - what a hero! What a story! Basically, 4th century CE Roman Empire was a tumultuous time on the brink of disaster. The story is told via three perspectives: Julian himself, as well as two of his former philosophy teachers, Priscus and Libanius. Together, all three recount the life of Julian - through letters, diary entries, marginalia and notes to self. We watch as Julian - enthusiastic, nerdy, idealistic - survives the dangers of an Imperial childhood (royal families tending to murder each other), becomes Emperor, pushes back the German tribes, secures Gauls, tries to get everyone onboard with a Hellenistic revival via loooots of clumsy, gory sacrifices to various Olympian gods, tries to conquer Persia, almost succeeds and, well, dies. It's not a spoiler. It's 1,600+ years ago!
What surprised me about this book - and made it so lovable - is that it BROUGHT HISTORY TO TACTILE LIFE. The people were real people. They gossiped, farted, got annoyed, forgot things, were clumsy, were ambitious, complained about bugs. The politics felt immediate; the philosophy - especially the clear-eyed (and very critical) portrayal of an early, ambitious, havoc-wreaking Christianity - felt urgent. Gore Vidal makes it supremely easy to connect there to here - AND he makes it supremely easy to see ourselves there. You understand exactly why some people are Christians, some people refuse to be, and so on.
This Late Classical period - so perilously close to the Dark Ages - feels tragic. Julian and his philosopher bros know they're at the end of "their" history - the history that matters to them. Christianity is quickly destroying the old world. Their future is dark. I was watching this Khan Academy video about the early Renaissance, and - just seeing the timeline of Classical Period -> Dark Ages -> Renaissance -> Modernism was a SHOCK. The Dark Ages last a THOUSAND YEARS. The Renaissance was a blip. Then it's immediately the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, industrialization, and then the horrors of the 20th century. Like: I'm surprised both by how much separates me from Julian, and by how little. The richness of the story is made EXTRA BUTTERY RICH by the knowledge that I, as a modern reader sitting in 2018, have about What Happened Next.
In other words, it was a heaping slice of perfectly slaying historical fiction. HIGHLY recommend. This is the current contender of Best Read of 2018 for me.
Set in the 4th century CE, this is a biography of Julian (AKA Julian the Apostate), the (last) Roman Emperor who believed in the Olympian gods and rejected Christianity. I had never heard of him, but now I think - what a hero! What a story! Basically, 4th century CE Roman Empire was a tumultuous time on the brink of disaster. The story is told via three perspectives: Julian himself, as well as two of his former philosophy teachers, Priscus and Libanius. Together, all three recount the life of Julian - through letters, diary entries, marginalia and notes to self. We watch as Julian - enthusiastic, nerdy, idealistic - survives the dangers of an Imperial childhood (royal families tending to murder each other), becomes Emperor, pushes back the German tribes, secures Gauls, tries to get everyone onboard with a Hellenistic revival via loooots of clumsy, gory sacrifices to various Olympian gods, tries to conquer Persia, almost succeeds and, well, dies. It's not a spoiler. It's 1,600+ years ago!
What surprised me about this book - and made it so lovable - is that it BROUGHT HISTORY TO TACTILE LIFE. The people were real people. They gossiped, farted, got annoyed, forgot things, were clumsy, were ambitious, complained about bugs. The politics felt immediate; the philosophy - especially the clear-eyed (and very critical) portrayal of an early, ambitious, havoc-wreaking Christianity - felt urgent. Gore Vidal makes it supremely easy to connect there to here - AND he makes it supremely easy to see ourselves there. You understand exactly why some people are Christians, some people refuse to be, and so on.
This Late Classical period - so perilously close to the Dark Ages - feels tragic. Julian and his philosopher bros know they're at the end of "their" history - the history that matters to them. Christianity is quickly destroying the old world. Their future is dark. I was watching this Khan Academy video about the early Renaissance, and - just seeing the timeline of Classical Period -> Dark Ages -> Renaissance -> Modernism was a SHOCK. The Dark Ages last a THOUSAND YEARS. The Renaissance was a blip. Then it's immediately the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, industrialization, and then the horrors of the 20th century. Like: I'm surprised both by how much separates me from Julian, and by how little. The richness of the story is made EXTRA BUTTERY RICH by the knowledge that I, as a modern reader sitting in 2018, have about What Happened Next.
In other words, it was a heaping slice of perfectly slaying historical fiction. HIGHLY recommend. This is the current contender of Best Read of 2018 for me.
adventurous
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I wanted to give it a chance, but it read too much like a history book. So I was bored in this context. Vidal is a good writer and extremely well-researched, but I was not having fun.