Julian: A Novel by Gore Vidal Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.99 You Save: $9.01 (56%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.00 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Julian: A Novel
Book Review: Julian: A character of contradictions
Summary: 5 Stars
I consider Julian to be a romantic novel more than a historic document. The book serves two purposes for Vidal; one, depict the Apostate Julian as a tragic hero in true Hellenistic style, and two, provide a modern criticism of Christianity. The period of Constantine (Julian's Uncle) through Julian's death marks the foundation and development of Christianity, and it is no coincidence that Vidal chooses a hero from this era to create his epic novel. The main narrator of the story is Julian himself, through his personal memoirs. However, two rival philosophers, Libanius and Priscus, regularly intercede with their personal notes. The perspective of three chroniclers broadens the capacity of the novel so that Julian can give his personal views, but events can also be editorialized from alternative angles.
Julian is a character of contrasts. Although raised by Christian monks, he becomes a champion of paganism. An affinity for philosophy, he becomes famous for his military prowess. He claims to be an intellectual, but his obsession with superstition drives all his decisions. Like a classic Hellenistic hero, Julian has an Achilles heel: his predisposition for craving for the vague and incomprehensible mysteries. Hence, he falls victim to Maximus, a character analogous to Rasputin in the Russian tragedy of Nicholas and Alexandra. During Julian's ascent to power and subsequent reign, Maximus is a ubiquitous presence to assist Julian in interpreting omens in a manner that benefits Maximus. Generally, Maximus seems to have two influences over Julian. First, he reinforces any omen that tells Julian to resuscitate the ancient pagan gods, and, second, to be the next Alexander by conquering Asia, starting with Persia.
With regard to Vidal's criticism of Christianity, Julian undergoes a change over the course of his life (much due to the cajoling of Maximus). Julian and his brother, Gallus, were raised by Bishops, Eusebius and Gregory. However, Julian quickly develops a disdain for the "Galileans" and spends his life restoring paganism. Some of Julian's observations regarding Christianity are quoted below (page numbers may not align with all editions, but can be used to help find relative positions):
"A religion of brotherhood and mildness which daily murders those who disagree with its doctrines can only be thought hypocrite, or worse." (pp. 31)
"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 borrow from our mystery rites, particularly those of Mithras." (pp. 81).
"The search is the whole point to philosophy and the religious experience. It is part of the Galilean impiety to proclaim that the search ended three hundred years ago when a young rabbi was executed for treason. But according to Paul of Tarsus, Jesus was no ordinary rabbi or even messiah; he was the One God himself who rose from the dead in order to judge the world immediately. In fact, Jesus is quoted as having assured his followers that some of them would be alive when the day of judging arrived. But one by one the disciples died in the natural course and we are still waiting for that promised day. Meanwhile, the bishops amass property, persecute one another, and otherwise revel in this life, while the state is weekend and on our borders the barbarians gather like winter wolves..." (pp. 285).
"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." (pp. 288)
As Augustus, Julian states that "no one shall ever be hurt by me because of his faith" but indicts the gathered bishops with lists of their latest crimes and calls them hypocrites. (pp.291)
"The Christians do not offer enough, though I must say they are outrageously bold in the way they adapt our most sacred rituals and festivals to their own ends. A clear sign that their religion is a false one, improvised by man over time, rather than born naturally of eternity." (pp. 331).
Julian is truly an epic novel. So rich with detail and elaborate characters, Vidal takes you to 350 AD. The political forces are delineated as if they were in today's newspaper's headlines. For a more explicit and forthright exposition of Vidal's criticism of Christianity, I would recommend "Live from Golgotha: The Gospel According to Gore Vidal." In that novel, Vidal lampoons biblical characters as they construct the modern testaments to Jesus.
Book Review: Meticulous, Dramatic Account of Julian the Apostate & Paganism's Last Stand.
Summary: 5 Stars
"Julian" of Gore Vidal's novel is the emperor Julian the Apostate, who ruled Rome for three short years, 360-363 AD, and is best-remembered for his failed attempt to restore paganism to an Empire awash in Christianity since his uncle Constantine's reign. Strictly speaking, this is more a fictional biography than a novel. It is composed of fictional memoirs, journals, and commentary. Its single-minded storyline -the life, deeds, and character of Julian- has a strong narrative quality, however, and the epistolary format allows commentary on the Emperor's ideas that might be awkward in a conventional narrative. Julian recounts his life story in a memoir up until the point of his Persian campaign, when he records his thoughts in a journal. Two aging Hellenist philosophers, Priscus and Libanius, comment on Julian's account and lament the state of the Empire since his death.
Priscus was a rationalist, atheist philosopher who accompanied Julian on his heroic military campaigns in Gaul and on his fatal Persian campaign as Emperor, so he is able to fill in parts of the story that Julian leaves out. As Priscus is critical of Julian's superstitious nature and fondness for mystery cults, he speculates on the origins of Julian's disaffection with Christianity, much to Libanius' annoyance. Libanius is a mystic rhetorician from Antioch, who knew and admired Julian and hopes to rehabilitate the Emperor's memory by publishing his memoir during the reign of Theodosius, who has recently decreed any religion other than Athanasian Christianity heretic. Libanius and Priscus were real people, but little is known of the real Priscus, and, needless to say, Julian didn't leave a memoir. Gore Vidal uses these characters to reflect on Julian and to place his actions in context.
Though far from being uncritical, "Julian" admires its subject in spite of his faults and his conceits, as Priscus and Libanius did, and as Gore Vidal obviously does. He was an intelligent, thoughtful man, whose impatience, superstition, and military ambition tended to undermine his mission to restore the "true gods" to the Empire. Oddly priggish, unfortunately elitist, Julian comes across as a sympathetic, fully realized character, a brave man who could be impressively astute and comically foolish at the same time. It's painful to watch his mistakes, inspiring to witness his triumphs, and disturbing to finally see Julian's failure. Gore Vidal's view of Julian is not without controversy, but to bring Julian and the final battle between paganism and Christianity in Europe so vividly to life sixteen centuries after it happened is a great accomplishment -and great writing.
Book Review: Nonbelieving Literati
Summary: 4 Stars
As I was reading the book I became interested in the characters and endeavored to find more about them, and though I could find a great deal about Libanius, Priscus was more difficult. And now reading John's explanation for Priscus, the pieces click into place.
I enjoyed the exchange between Libanius and Priscus a great deal. Julian's words I found frustrating. There was so much he could have done, but in the end he only substituted one religion for another. I think Priscus expressed it best in his commentary:
"Julian speaks continually of his love of Hellenism. He honestly believed he loved Plato and reasonable discourse. Actually, what he craved was what so many desire in this falling time: assurance of personal immortality. He chose to reject the Christian way for reasons which I find obscure, while settling on an equal absurdity. Of course I am sympathetic to him. He dealt the Christians some good blows and that delighted me. But I cannot sympathize with his fear of extinction. 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? I am in no hurry to depart. But I look on nothing as just that: no thing. How can one fear no thing?" p.90-91
Of course not existing before birth is more of a Western religious tradition, and his argument largely does not apply to Eastern religions, but I still find a lot of meaning in his words. I don't want to die, but I accept it. I accept that I won't go on as anything else after my physical death. One day I'll be forgotten as if I never existed and it doesn't bother me.
But Julian had his spots of brilliance where he expressed philosophy and religion in terms that I think many liberal Christians embrace today, as he argued with Christian priests:
"After all, as educated men, we should realize that myths always stand for other things. They are toys for children teething. The man knows that the toy horse is not a true horse but merely suggests the idea of a horse to a baby's mind. When we pray before the statue of Zeus, though the statue contains him as everything must, the statue is not the god himself but only a suggestion of him. Surely, as fellow priests, we can be frank with one another about these grown-up matters." p.338
Why is it difficult to accept ancient religious writings as myths written by men who were trying to explain the world around them and how humans fit into that world? Surely in 3000 years our own writings on science will look just as much like myths as our understanding grows. That doesn't mean that these men weren't wise or didn't hold that kernel of truth, but that they didn't have the knowledge we have now or the knowledge we'll have in the future, if our species continues.
We build on knowledge. That's our evolutionary advantage. When knowledge is lost it's a tragedy. When knowledge is rejected it's a sin. I know that's going to be taken out of context. I don't mean there aren't things we shouldn't do, that there aren't things that are wrong. What I mean is that's it's wrong to reject knowledge because it questions our preconceived ideas about the world.
We use metaphor today when teaching. Why is it any different in ancient texts? We make mistakes, follow incorrect leads, and sometimes completely misunderstand what we're studying. Was it so different with men in the past? I cling tightly to preconceived ideas sometimes. But I hope that I'll continue to learn and question and grow despite my prejudices.
And mostly I hope I'm never to stubborn to hold onto something that I want to believe, simply because I want to believe it as Julian did. As Priscus said:
"Incidentally, in his description of that seance with the Etruscans he omits my remark to him, "What is the point of listening to soothsayers, if you won't believe what they tell you" But Julian was very like the Christians who are able to make their holy book endorse anything they want it to." p.422
Book Review: Real power
Summary: 5 Stars
When you are born into greatness, you may be forgiven for exhibiting a sense of destiny or an assumption of purpose. When you also find yourself marginalised, you may also be praised for a decision to pursue philosophy and learning alongside religious purity. When the celebrity that is your birthright also suggests that others might prefer you dead, you might be excused for wanting to keep your head down. But then you were born into greatness and had no choice in the matter. Your head is permanently above the parapet.
Gore Vidal's masterpiece of historical fiction works on every level. The Roman emperor Julian is his subject. The novel charts Julian's origins and early years in the eastern part of the late Roman Empire. He thinks of himself as Greek, never really masters Latin and never willingly expresses himself in it. Neither is he one of those new-fangled Galilean types who espouse a new religion with three gods. No, Julian is a traditionalist, though not because of a propensity for conservatism, but more because the tried and tested has worked for centuries, continues to do so and, crucially, reveals itself to him. Like his own pedigree, the old religion has an identity and record all its own and, alongside that, proven power. He takes this stand despite the habit of conversion, manifest in Constantine's adoption of the new faith, running in the family.
Julian's form - in the sense of literary form - works with remarkable success and consistency. It is presented as his own journal, jottings toward an intended autobiography. But these notes have been pored over by two readers, Libanius and Priscus, both of whom the emperor has known since childhood. Since they are both also teachers, philosophers and advisers, their marginal comments are themselves interesting, enlightening and definitely not to be trusted.
The book, thus, is a linear progression through a life, something akin to an autobiography in note form. It describes Julian's early formation and education in detail and his almost Masonic adoption into the old religion. It captures beautifully how pragmatism must rule, despite the necessity of being faithful to ideology. It relates with great skill how greatness can be thrust upon even a willing recipient, be accepted, and yet be no more than a manifestation of cynical pragmatism.
So when Julian is summoned to the status of Caesar, we see immediately that power prefers him on the inside projecting minimally outwards, rather than outside and potentially polluting. His changed status warrants a posting to Gaul to clear up the mess left by others less competent, a hospital pass if ever there was one.
But Julian astounds all. He succeeds. He has the Midas touch. Everything goes his way and his pragmatism marries itself to opportunism to generate a populist mongrel that fights better, schemes more ruthlessly and thus wins. What it never does, however, is forget its origins. Throughout it remains frugal, thrifty and to the point, the greatness thrust upon it is reinvested towards achieving a greater, but ever-receding glory.
Gore Vidal's Julian thus raises its subject to Augustan status and follows the new leader to the east where he engages Persia and dreams of conquering India. Is this Alexander reborn? What the book does not do - thankfully - is offer detailed descriptions of military matters, since Julian himself has already written on these things elsewhere. This neat ploy keeps the focus of the book on the man, not his exploits. Late sections are in note form only, since the emperor was engaged with his day job of attempted world domination.
As historical fiction, Julian has it all. It recreates a feeling of the places. It relives decisions and options in a thoroughly convincing way. It fleshes out events with credible, fallible people, despite their occasional god status. Above all, it takes you there.
Book Review: Splendid historical fiction with acid humor
Summary: 5 Stars
A novel about a Roman emperor whose rule was brief, Julian known as the Apostate was the nephew of Constantine. When he became the emperor he tried to bring back worship of the "old gods" and oust Christianity, a religion not favorably portrayed, though neither are the old ways of oracle and sacrifice. Three different views of the same historical events are presented by having three different narrators - Julian himself, and Libanius and Priscus both philosophers who knew him. The philosophers are carrying on a correspondence regarding Julian's autobiography sometime after his death at age 32.
Well written and researched, this book invites fascinating "what if.......?" speculation; just imagine if he had reigned longer and been successful what a totally different place Europe would have been.