Philosopher-king or persecutor?

A review of "Julian the Apostate" by G W Bowersock. 

Julian was Roman emperor from 361 to 363. He was the last pagan ruler of the Roman Empire. Since he had began life as a Christian, later Christian writers refer to him as Julian the Apostate. Julian's predecessors Constantine the Great and Constantius had made Christianity the state religion of the empire. Julian attempted to undo this situation, consciously striving for a pagan revival. Naturally, this has endeared him to people critical of Christianity ever since, while Christians have seen him as a villain.

G.W. Bowersock's biography of Julian is highly critical of the pagan emperor, depicting him as a religious fanatic and ascetic revolutionary, comparing Julian to Lenin and Mao Zedong. Julian wasn't simply a Neo-Platonist philosopher, but also believed in the more murky parts of paganism: the efficacy of animal sacrifice, magic and oracles. The future emperor even had weird religious visions, and his entourage consisted of both educated pagan sophists and notorious theurgists. (It should be noted that Neo-Platonism at this point in time combined philosophy with theurgy, the latter being no better than magic in the author's opinion.) Julian quite consciously modelled himself on Socrates, and attempted to create a centralized pagan organization, in effect a kind of pagan church, with himself as high priest. The pagan church was to mimic the Christians in charity to the poor and the stranger, something Julian believed was the main reason for the success of Christianity.

Bowersock believes that the religious tolerance proclaimed by Julian at the beginning of his reign was a ruse, and that his real policy was to persecute the Christians. When a pagan mob at Alexandria killed the Arian bishop of the city, Julian criticized their actions but without interfering. More anti-Christian riots followed in other towns of the empire. Julian also banished Christian teachers from higher education by prohibiting them from teaching the Greek classics, such as Homer or Hesiod. Before Julian's fateful campaign against the Persians, during which the emperor was eventually killed, he unsuccessfully attempted to de-Christianize the Roman troops, executing or banishing officers who refused to accept the new pagan order. A more idiosyncratic project was Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, a project met with unease even by the Jews themselves. After a series of mysterious accidents, the plans had to be abandoned. One reason why "the apostate" wanted the Jewish temple reconstructed was to disprove the prophecies of Jesus about the destruction of the temple!

However, even Bowersock has to admit that Julian also carried out extensive and positive reforms: at one stroke, he did away with the truly Byzantine bureaucracy at Constantinople. The emperor also purged the informers, devolved power to the senate and the ancient cities, and attempted to curb other forms of corruption and abuse as well. The author is uncharitable to Julian's attempt to deal with a famine in Syrian Antioch by imposing price controls. Here, the problem was obviously that Julian interfered too little, rather than too much. Besides, Julian seems to have saved the good people of Antioch by forcing the bakers of the city to provide cheap bread for the inhabitants. (The old fox apparently understood the dictum that we don't get bread because of the benevolence of the baker!)

G.W. Bowersock believes that Julian the Apostate ultimately made himself impossible among both Christians and pagans. His attempts to revive paganism were met with incomprehension and scorn at Antioch, as were his hostility towards theatres and chariot-races, which he would rather have prohibited entirely. Still, it's difficult not to feel a certain sympathy with the ascetic emperor when he accused the Antiochenes of being ungrateful to him. After all, he had saved them from hunger and attempted to strongarm their rich elite. Perhaps the citizens of Antioch preferred their chariot-races...

"Julian the Apostate" is a well written book. A few chapters seem directed at fellow historians, but most of the book is relatively easy to read, and can be digested even by an average reader. It does help if you already have a working knowledge of Roman history.

Of course, the book is controversial (see the other customer reviews). Julian is usually painted in a much more positive light, as the tolerant reformer and philosopher-king. Still, it might be interesting to read a negative view of Julian as well, especially since Bowersock doesn't seem to be arguing from a Christian perspective.