Julian's negative character traits?

[Knonfoda]

I have recently been reading 'Adrian Murdoch's 'The Last Pagan - Julian the Apostate And the Death of The Ancient World" and he gives us quite a few insights into the early life of emperor Julian.

In one passage however, he quotes a letter Julian sent to local library officials in Alexandria after George, the bishop of Caesarea, had passed away. The letter is quoted as Julian, Ep.23 and states:

"Some men have a passion for horses, others for birds, others again for wild beasts; but I from childhood have been infused with a passionate longing to acquire books. It would therefore be absurd if I should suffer these to be appropriated by men whose inordinate desire for wealth gold alone cannot satiate and who unscrupulously design to steal these as well. Grant me therefore this personal favour, that all of the books which belong to George be looked out, at his house there are many on philosophy, many on rhetoric and many as well on the teachings of the impious Gallileans. These laterly I should wish to be utterly anihilated, but for fear that along with them more useful works may be destroyed by mistake; let all these also be looked for with the greatest care. Let George's secretary take charge of this search for you and if he hunts for them faithfully, let him know that he will obtain his freedom as a reward, but that if he is in any way dishonest in the business he will be tortured. And I know what books George had, many of them if at any rate not all, for he lent me some of them to copy when I was in Cappadocia and these he received back."

I was quite fascinated by this passage because of the mention of torture should the secretary fail. At this point Julian was in his early twenties and wasn't emperor yet, but still, it does point towards a less reputable aspect of his character. A few pages later, it seems Julian was attempting to curry favour with a reputable scholar of the time, Aedesius, the 'principal' of the neoplatonic academy of Pergamun. He did this by trying to get Aedesius to teach him personally by sending him all manner of expensive gifts. (Murdoch, 24-25) So again, we see here a predisposition towards 'bribery'.

Anyway, I just wanted to hear from all of you any other anecdotes or factual evidence you may have that points towards other aspects of Julian's character which could be frowned upon, especially given his typical treatment as a model emperor and a great philosopher.

Cheers!

[Diocletianus]

Woaaa ! Julian is not a god so it is most probable that he had negatives character traits

[Diocle]

It is strange but in my twnties I would have done exactly the same things, (obviously if I was him) very interesting quotes Knonfoda, very interesting!

IMO these anecdotes make him more human and not evil, let us ask ourselves, what would have done another member of the family of the emperor Constantius II ( if anyone was still alive o.c.).
Another powerful young Roman royal family member, descendant of Constantinus, probably would torture (not threaten) the poor secretary only for his personal pleasure and to be sure of his honesty, and probably he would order Aedesius to teach him! Good Jiulianus not evil but more human sympathy!!!

[Chelchal]

His biggest failing was that he was not methodical. He tried to do too much at once. The Christianization of the imperial cities was a gradual process and it was not going to be undone by a radical revolution from above, however bloodless. The Persian campaign is another example. I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve. He should have been content to seize and fortify some border regions and then march home.

[Knonfoda]

Thanks for the replies, but I feel I must elaborate.

I don't mean evil and I don't mean failures as in failures of policy, but rather the darker sides of his personality. He was obviously young and perhaps rash (he was always rash) and in the very stages of his philosophical education, what I mean are things like vices and so forth. We can see here he has little problem with torture, or at least knows how useful it can be. So through the surviving literature, are there any other vices we can find of his character?

[Diocle]

I agree and this is the reason I fell him so human and so close to me!
The anecdotes of Knonfoda show his real nature, he wasn't a true politician, a cold minded calculator, a great strategy planner but a young man interested in old books, philosophy, literature and who hated the religion of the man who killed his family, the real surprising thing is that he has been successful in the great task which the fate had prepared for him: Caesar in Gallia, the defeat of Alemanni, the Civil struggle with Constantius II, the title of Augustus!
Really one of the most modern, strange and interesting characters of the Roman history!

You are right Knonfoda, I'm reading your elaboration and I'll search!! (but as said Kant the ideas/threat of torture, are different from the actions/torture really someone!)

[Valentinian Victor]

You might find this from Ammianus, who served under Julian in the invasion of Sasanid Persia of some interest-


'4 Julianus's merits and defects, his bodily form and stature.
1 He was a man truly to be numbered with the heroic spirits, distinguished for his illustrious deeds and his inborn majesty. For since there are, in the opinion of the philosophers, four principal virtues,32 moderation, wisdom, justice, and courage and corresponding to these also some external characteristics, such as knowledge of the art of war, authority, good fortune, and liberality, these as a whole and separately Julianus cultivated with constant zeal.
2 In the first place, he was so conspicuous for inviolate chastity that after the loss of his wife33 it is well known that he never gave a thought to love: bearing in mind what we read in Plato,34 that Sophocles, the tragic poet, when we was asked, at a great age, whether he still had congress with women, said no, adding that he was glad that he had escaped from this passion as from some mad and cruel p505master. 3 Also, to give greater strength to this principle, Julianus often repeated the saying of the lyric poet Bacchylides, whom he delighted to read, who declares that as a skilful painter gives a face beauty, just so chastity gives charm to a life of high aims. This blemish in the mature strength of manhood he avoided with such care, that even his most confidential attendants never (as often happens) accused him even of a suspicion of any lustfulness.
4 Moreover, this kind of self restraint was made still greater through his moderation in eating and sleeping, which he strictly observed at home and abroad. For in time of peace the frugality of his table excited the wonder of those who could judge aright, as if he intended soon to resume the philosopher's cloak. And on his various campaigns, he was often seen partaking of common and scanty food, sometimes standing up like a common soldier. 5 As soon as he had refreshed his body, which was inured to toil, by a brief rest in sleep, he awoke and in person attended to the changing of the guards and pickets, and after these serious duties took refuge in the pursuit of learning. 6 And if the nightly lamps amid which he worked could have given oral testimony, they would certainly have borne witness that there was a great difference between him and some other princes, since they knew that he did not indulge in pleasure, even to the extent which nature demanded.
7 Then there were very many proofs of his wisdom, of which it will suffice to mention a few. He was thoroughly skilled in the arts of war and peace, greatly inclined to courtesy, and claiming for p507himself only so much deference as he thought preserved him from contempt and insolence. He was older in virtue than in years. He gave great attention to the administration of justice, and was sometimes an unbending judge; also a very strict censor in regulating conduct, with a calm contempt for riches, scorning everything mortal; in short, he often used to declare that it was shameful for a wise man, since he possessed a soul, to seek honour from bodily gifts.
8 By what high qualities he was distinguished in his administration of justice is clear from many indications: first, because taking into account circumstances and persons, he was awe-inspiring but free from cruelty. Secondly, because he checked vice by making examples of a few, and also because he more frequently threatened men with the sword than actually used it. 9 Finally, to be brief, it is well known that he was so merciful towards some open enemies who plotted against him, that he corrected the severity of their punishment by his inborn mildness.
10 His fortitude is shown by the great number of his battles and by his conduct of wars, as well as by his endurance of excessive cold and heat. And although bodily duty is demanded from a soldier, but mental duty from a general, yet he once boldly met a savage enemy in battle and struck him down,35 and when our men gave ground, he several times alone checked their flight36 by opposing his breast to them. When destroying the kingdoms of the raging Germans and on the burning sands of Persia he added to the confidence of his p509soldiers by fighting among the foremost. 11 There are many notable evidences of his knowledge of military affairs: the sieges of cities and fortresses, undertaken amid the extremest dangers, the varied forms in which he arranged the lines of battle, the choice of safe and healthful places for camps, the wisely planned posting of frontier guards and field pickets. 12 His authority was so well established that, being feared as well as deeply loved as one who shared in the dangers and hardships of his men, he both in the heat of fierce battles condemned cowards to punishment, and, while he was still only a Caesar,37 he controlled his men even without pay, when they were fighting with savage tribes, as I have long ago said. And when they were armed and mutinous, he did not fear to address them and threaten to return to private life, if they continued to be insubordinate. 13 Finally, one thing it will be enough to know in token of many, namely, that merely by a speech he induced his Gallic troops, accustomed to snow and to the Rhine, to traverse long stretches of country and follow him through torrid Assyria to the very frontiers of the Medes.
14 His success was so conspicuous that for a longtime he seemed to ride on the shoulders of Fortune herself, his faithful guide as he in victorious career surmounted enormous difficulties. And after he left the western region, so long as he was on earth all nations preserved perfect quiet, as if a kind of earthly wand of Mercury were pacifying them.
15 There are many undoubted tokens of his p511generosity. Among these are his very light imposition of tribute, his remission of the crown-money,38 the cancellation of many debts made great by long standing,39 the impartial treatment of disputes between the privy purse and private persons, the restoration of the revenues from taxes to various states along with their lands, except such as previous high officials40 had alienated by a kind of legal sale; furthermore, that he was never eager to increase his wealth, which he thought was better secured in the hands of its possessors; and he often remarked that Alexander the Great, when asked where his treasures were, gave the kindly answer, "in the hands of my friends."
16 Having set down his good qualities, so many as I could know, let me now come to an account of his faults, although they can be summed up briefly. In disposition he was somewhat inconsistent, but he controlled this by the excellent habit of submitting, when he went wrong, to correction. 17 He was somewhat talkative, and very seldom silent; also too much given to the consideration of omens and portents, so that in this respect he seemed to equal the emperor Hadrian. Superstitious rather than truly religious, he sacrificed innumerable victims without regard to cost, so that one might believe that if he had returned from the Parthians, there would soon have been a scarcity of cattle; like the Caesar Marcus,41 of whom (as we learn) the following Greek distich was written:

We the white steers do Marcus Caesar greet. Win once again, and death we all must meet.

p513 18 He delighted in the applause of the mob, and desired beyond measure praise for the slightest matters, and the desire for popularity often led him to converse with unworthy men.
19 But yet, in spite of this, his own saying might be regarded as sound, namely, that the ancient goddess of Justice, whom Aratus42 raised to heaven because of her impatience with men's sins, returned to earth again during his rule, were it not that sometimes he acted arbitrarily, and now and then seemed unlike himself. 20 For the laws which he enacted were not oppressive, but stated exactly what was to be done or left undone, with a few exceptions. For example, it was a harsh law that forbade Christian43 rhetoricians and grammarians to teach, unless they consented to worship the pagan deities. 21 And also it was almost unbearable that in the municipal towns he unjustly allowed persons to be made members of the councils, who, either as foreigners, or because of personal privileges or birth, were wholly exempt from such assemblies.44
22 The figure and proportion of his body were as follows. He was of medium stature. His hair lay smooth as if it had been combed, his beard was shaggy and trimmed so as to end in a point, his eyes were fine and full of fire, an indication of the acuteness of his mind. His eyebrows were handsome, his nose very straight, his mouth somewhat large with a pendulous lower lip. His neck was thick and somewhat bent, his shoulders large and broad. Moreover, right from top to toe he was a man of straight well-proportioned p515bodily frame and as a result was strong and a good runner. 23 And since his detractors alleged that he had stirred up the storms of war anew, to the ruin of his country, they should know clearly through the teachings of truth, that it was not Julianus, but Constantine, who kindled the Parthian fires, when he confided too greedily in the lies of Metrodorus,45 as I explained fully some time ago.46 24 This it was that caused the annihilation of our armies, the capture so often of whole companies of soldiers, the destruction of cities, the seizure or overthrow of fortresses, the exhaustion of our provinces by heavy expenses, and the threats of the Persians which were soon brought into effect, as they claimed everything as far as Bithynia and the shores of the Propontis. 25 But in Gaul, where barbarian arrogance grew apace, as the Germans swarmed through our territories, and the Alps were on the point of being forced with the resulting devastation of Italy, after the inhabitants had suffered many unspeakable woes, nothing was left save tears and fears, since the recollection of the past was bitter and the anticipation of what threatened was sadder still: all this that young man, sent to the western region, a Caesar in name p517only,47 wholly corrected with almost incredible speed, driving kings before him like common slaves. 26 And in order to restore the Orient with similar energy, he attacked the Persians, and he would have won from them a triumph and a surname, if the decrees of heaven had been in accord with his plans and his splendid deeds. 27 And although we know that some men thoughtlessly laugh at experience to such an extent that they sometimes renew wars when defeated, and go to sea again after shipwreck,48 and return to meet difficulties to which they have often yielded, there are some who blame a prince who had been everywhere victorious for trying to equal his past exploits. '

[Chelchal]

Thanks for the replies, but I feel I must elaborate.

I don't mean evil and I don't mean failures as in failures of policy, but rather the darker sides of his personality. He was obviously young and perhaps rash (he was always rash) and in the very stages of his philosophical education, what I mean are things like vices and so forth. We can see here he has little problem with torture, or at least knows how useful it can be. So through the surviving literature, are there any other vices we can find of his character?

It was typical of the age, unfortunately. Ammianus himself may have participated in a torture session:

Being delivered from this danger, when we had come to a woody spot, full of vines and fruit-bearing trees, called Meiacarire, a name derived from the cool springs found there, we found that the inhabitants had all fled, and there was only a single soldier remaining behind, concealed in a remote corner. And when he was brought, before our general, and through fear told all kinds of different stories, and so became an object of suspicion; at last, under the compulsion of our threats, he told the real truth, that he was a native of Gaul, and had been bom among the Parisii, that he had served in our cavalry, but that fearing punishment for some offence he had deserted to the Persians; that he had since married a wife of excellent character, and had a family, and that having been frequently sent as a spy to our camp, he had always brought the Persians true intelligence. And now he said he had been sent by the nobles Tamsapor and Nohodares, who were in command of the predatory bands, to bring them such intelligence as he could collect. After telling us this, and also that he know of the operations of the enemy, he was put to death.

"Compulsion of our threats" sounds pretty euphemistic to me. There's a tendency to view antiquity as a precursor to modernity, interrupted by the superstitions of the dark ages. It isn't really true. It was a distinct period in history with its own moral code.

It's pretty clear that when things weren't going his way, Julian became ruthless. When the Germans broke their treaties, crossed the Rhine, burned their settlements and farms and generally hacked them to pieces. I don't imagine the civilians were spared; the men who resisted were killed, their women raped by his soldiers and the children perhaps carried away.

After the difficult siege of the powerful fortress of Maizomalcha, Julian's forces slaughtered the inhabitants as Ammianus recalls:

At last the fated city, its numerous entrances being laid open, was entered by the Romans, and the furious troops destroyed all whom they found, without regard to age or sex. Some of the citizens, from dread of impending destruction, threatened on one side with fire, on the other with the sword, weeping threw themselves headlong over the walls, and being crippled in all their limbs, led for a few hours or days a life more miserable than any death, till they were finally killed.

Ammianus practically relishes the butchery.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Ah, good times!

[Valentinian Victor]

I have been discussing some aspects of this thread on another forum recently. I would contend that it was the norm for most societies during the Late Roman period to eliminate the inhabitants of conquered cities, be it Roman, Sasanid etc. It does not appear anything other than 'the usual custom' as one Roman author puts it.

If your brought up in a society where when a baby is born it is left on its own in a room and if its father then either does not go in the room or pick up the baby it is then either strangled or put on a dung heap to either die or be taken by anyone who wants it, to bring it up as a slave if required so desired; if your brought up to really believe in God's and other supernatural entities; where your life expectancy is not more more than 30 years for the average person; where 05% of the population owned 95% of the wealth; where the 95% lived at an subsistance level; where you had to hide your valuables in a hole in the ground; where news about events such as invasions generally only reached you several weeks after it had happened, and only then if you lived in a major town or city, others knowing no more about the world than the furthest distance they could walk in a day, and the first they heard about an invasion would be when the invader was in your midst!

If your brought up under those conditions then why do we wonder why the ancients had different society 'norms' to our modern society 'norms'?

[Chelchal]

Oh I'm not wondering about it. I fully concede that the idea of historical progress, whether technological or moral or what have you is a notion not really order than the 18th century, especially since thinkers in antiquity tended to view history in terms of cycles, with stability being the ideal.

But knowing that doesn't make it anymore palatable or attractive. Even for the sake of objectivity I can't quite shake off my dismay at individual human lives being a disposable commodity.

[Chelchal]

At the same time, I'm not trying to pick on Julian. Constantius and Valens were rather similar to one another in the sense that they were both paranoid, suspicious, and at times, cruel mediocrities who nonetheless seemed to have meant well. Constans and Gallus seemed quite depraved. Valentinian was a tough, ruthless boor, but he tried to prevent abuse against the commons, was not a religion fanatic, and kept the frontier secure. Gratian was again capable before he became too frivolous. I haven't made up my mind against Theodosius, although the result of his civil wars with the West greatly sapped its abilities to resist Germanic incursions.

What's actually sad about most of these men is that they were not the parade of Caligulas and Neros Victorian moralists made them out to be. They were hardworking men, some of whom, like Valentinian and Valens, came from humble stations in life and understood better than their eunuchs and magistrates how their average subject lived. Ultimately, they failed and it was not entirely their fault.

[julianus heraclius]

I have always been interested in Julian, not necessarily because of his exploits which are really few to be honest, but the tragic figure that he presents. You sort of know that he is doomed to fail from the beginning, that his attempts to turn back the clock and reestablish paganism was never going to work. The times and more importantly, the social fabric had changed after the events of the third century (for a very good analysis of why this occurred I recommend William's book on Diocletian and The Roman Recovery).

But for me, it is the humaness of Julian that attracts me. Here is a quote from Adrian Murdoch's book "The Last Pagan" which I feel captures my thoughts and feelings:

"The best way to see Julian is to go to the ground floor of the Louvre, beyond the flashing bulbs that surround the Venus de Milo and past the vigilant Victory of Samothrace to the comparative calm of the late Roman section and look at the statue of Julian there. It stands both aloof and somehow lonely, looking over the room. Almost life-sized, Julian is dressed in the garb of a philosopher. The beard and the stance are those of a pagan thinker while the simple crown and the penetrating gaze do not let you forget that you are looking at a Constantinian emperor.

But these are merely the accoutrements of power, status and image. Look instead at the face. The features are those of a real person. The shock of the image is on a par with looking at a painting such as Caravaggio's Jesus at Emmaus. It is the humanity above all that is portrayed. If we look at statues of Julian's contenpories like Constantine and Constantius, or later reprsentations of emperors such as the mosiacs of Theodius in Ravenna, we perceive a deliberate stance. We are there to worship, honour or fear. This is different. This statue is not that of the emperor as a defender of the faith, a ruler of all things temporal and spiritual. It si a statue of a ruler as man (p.221-222).

[First Citizen Gallienus]

Interesting quote there indeed Julianus. I concur with your statements.
Personally, I identify with Decius' statue, which if you look up the word 'anxiety' on wikipedia, this said statue makes an appearance. It's the sad and tragic appearance of Decius who had to take on the burden of governance of the Roman Empire, at a time where things weren't going exactly the way they should've anymore. I admire Decius' courage on accepting the purple in the face of such impossible odds. While some might dismiss this image as the look of a coward, at the same time they cannot imagine the amount of sheer terror the emperors had to face.

[Diocle]

I think the post of JH is very interesting, IMO the more attractive aspect of the Emperor Julianus was his humanity, he is a real person not a cold great politician or general. His unfortunate but fascinating life, is the life of a young man who I feel quite similar to me or any of you, he is modern in his humanity, but this is also his limit!

What I mean is that his qualities was also his difects, he was not a good politician, he did not what should be done from the political point of view, but what he thought was right according to his personal ideas, he did not kill his political enemies, he did not seek a political compromise with the religious power of the time, he tryed to realise his dreams and not to build a personal political power, we could go on, but the point is clear: he acted more like a man who finds himself at the top of the power than a politician who slowly and systematically builds a strategy to govern an Empire.

I'm reading the book on Diocletian quoted by JH, Diocletian was a true politician, one of the best of history ,it is a rare thing, for me, do not find anything wrong with the sequence of actions of a politician, well! This is the case of Diocletian: Every single action of Diocletian was perfect, in terms of times, ways, priority of choices, tactic and strategy; he was the perfect politician, the perfect Imperator, compromise when compromise is needed, death when death is needed, great choices of men, perfect succesion of tactic along a clear strategical line and design,....simply perfect! But if you look for his humanity, you'll find very few real human aspects of his personality, he was like a machine, the perfect political machine, but the real person remain an enigma: well, Julian was the exact opposite, in every action of Julianus, we can see the man: the fear when called by Constantius, the uncertainty in dealing with his first political/military new role, his exaltation after the victory, his fear in front of the perspective of the great struggle with Constantius the Ogre, his exaltations, his hopes, his dreams,......... we do not find a political monument, we find a man like us!

I want to suggest a book which I'm reading, it is about the figure of Julian from the point of view of his emotional, intellectual and spiritual evolution, using good sources and in particular the 'Epistulae' of Julianus, I think it is a good book:

by Polymnia Athanassiadi: 'JULIAN, An Intellectual Biography' - by Routledge, London and New York



A simple question for any of you guys: It is possible to find in Internet the 'Epistulae' of Julian? (I dubt!)



.

[Knonfoda]

It's been a while since I've been on this thread, and it almost seems to have taken a life of its own, which is admirable, I'm glad people find the topic of Julian's less noble character aspects pleasing to discuss.

I must thank Valentinian Victor for your long, well referenced reply. It is a pleasure to read something directly from the source, and you have it all there, character, physical description, good things, bad things. It's one of the reasons I like Ammianus, he is so concise.

Also Chelchal, the part of your post where you say:

Being delivered from this danger, when we had come to a woody spot, full of vines and fruit-bearing trees, called Meiacarire, a name derived from the cool springs found there, we found that the inhabitants had all fled, and there was only a single soldier remaining behind, concealed in a remote corner. And when he was brought, before our general, and through fear told all kinds of different stories, and so became an object of suspicion; at last, under the compulsion of our threats, he told the real truth, that he was a native of Gaul, and had been bom among the Parisii, that he had served in our cavalry, but that fearing punishment for some offence he had deserted to the Persians; that he had since married a wife of excellent character, and had a family, and that having been frequently sent as a spy to our camp, he had always brought the Persians true intelligence. And now he said he had been sent by the nobles Tamsapor and Nohodares, who were in command of the predatory bands, to bring them such intelligence as he could collect. After telling us this, and also that he know of the operations of the enemy, he was put to death.

What book is this of Ammianus? I take it is the Persian expedition right? I've been reading Ammianus too, and I have got as far as Pirisabora, but have not come across this passage, which is fascinating.

And as both JH and Diocle have pointed out, he does have a certain 'humanity' to him that seems irreduceable. He acted on impulse and in what he believed in, which is admirable, but in many ways this was to his detriment in the end, so I suppose his rashness and perhaps, lack of 'tact' or even wisdom at times, were some of his defects. I mean, not wearing armour is probably one such error. HE would have been in a good position to know that in history, many have been the times a routed army has suddenly turned around and routed its attackers, so indeed, charging right in there without armour was a big mistake that sadly cost him his life.

Torture wise, I have no problem accepting it as a 'business as usual' approach of the day. I am by no means a relativist, I believe in right and wrong, but I also believe moral compasses are the result of the society you live in and are brought up in, ie the tabula rasa theory. So I suppose back in the day, if my society believed murder, plunder, torture and rape were okay, I think it is naive and wishful thinking to believe I (or anyone else for that matter) would think differently. Julian himself is a case in point, an 'enlightened' man, whom made himself very accessible to his own people and sought justice for them, but whom otherwise had no problem unleashing every kind of torment and suffering both on enemy individuals and entire populations.

Through reading Murdoch, Ammianus and the odd piece of literature here and there, a few things I could pick on was that he tried really really hard to be liked, and that this could sometimes backfire epicly such as in Antiocheia. From his campaign in Persia, he could sometimes be very harsh with his own army and his officers. Hell, he even used decimation at one point, something that even then was woefully outdated. At many occasions, it is seen his army is almost on the point of mutiny, and he has to practically bribe them (with money he doesn't have) to keep them on his side and continuing. He strikes me as the kind of person whom will be your best friend but could also be your worst enemy. He seems to come across as petty at times too.

And then on the other hand, he was (or seems to have been, from what literature survives) very closed emotionally and romantically. He seems to have been chaste for the better part of his life. He almost reminds me of a captain Jean Luc Picard sort of figure, a soldier, a philosopher, a leader, but a bit cold, distant, and not a family man from what it seemed. Still, I hold both in very high esteem, despite these flaws. Flaws are after all, what make us human, among other things. No one is perfect.

[samba_liten]

Julian listened in admiration to stories
of the magical and miraculous means by which Maximus demonstrated
his communion with the gods — how he so revered the goddess Hecate
that he had brought her statue to life, made it smile and laugh, and even
prevailed on the torches in her hands to burst into flames. Despite warnings
against such showmanship from Aedesius' more rationally-minded
students, Julian was captivated: 'farewell and devote yourselves to your
books; you have shown me the man I was in search of. He travelled to
Ephesus, and found what was to be his true spiritual home among the proteges
of Maximus, where he was initiated into the heady mix of religion,
magic and spectacle which made up their exotic world. In retrospect, for
Julian personally, it was to be his decisive break with Christianity, the
moment when, in his own words, at the age of twenty he had begun to
'follow the right path in the company of the gods'

(Cambridge Ancient History XIII p.46)

This leads me to view the good emperor as somewhat gullible.

At her [Eusebia's] intercession he was at last
given safe conduct home and then, after a change of plan, granted permission
to travel to Athens in the summer of 355 to resume his studies. It was
a destination calculated both to be congenial to Julian's intellectual interests
and to remove him to a safe distance from the political fall-out of Gallus'
overthrow.
Julian's stay in Athens lasted only a matter of weeks ('a little while': Ep.
adAth. 273 d), yet it was to acquire for him a symbolic significance out of
all proportion to its brevity.10 Athens emerged as his 'true fatherland' (Or.
in. 118d), for which the years of study in the cities of Asia Minor had been
mere preparation.

(Cambridge Ancient History XIII p.48)

Something of a poseur?

the attractions of ritual initiation sampled at Ephesus now brought Julian to
the great shrine at Eleusis, where the chief priest admitted him to the
sacred mysteries of Demeter (Eunap. V. Soph. 475—6, Loeb pp. 436—8). We
may readily believe that in Julian's case this counted as rather more than a
conventional gesture.

(Cambridge Ancient History XIII p.48)

Then again, perhaps he was sincere.

The austere style of Julian and his court harked back to an age when
Roman emperors cultivated the image of themselves as fellow citizens,
living the simple life, respectful of the dignities of the senate and open to
the will of their subjects. It reflected a growing obsession with the 'revolution'
of the Christian Constantine, who was accused by Julian (and the rest
of the pagan tradition) of creating an overblown and extravagant imperial
entourage: the Constantine of Julian's Caesars is the ruler who amasses
wealth to spend on himself and his friends.54 In blaming Constantine,
Julian cast him as the hate-figure who had overturned the traditions of the
past (xxi.10.8): he rejected Constantinian laws, for example, as innovations
which subverted ius antiquum {C.Tb. n.5.2, in. 1.3), and it was because of
Constantine and the 'folly of the Galilaeans' that 'everything had been
overturned' (Ep. 83 Bidez).

(Cambridge Ancient History XIII p.64)

Here is a glimpse of Julian that intrigues me. It is nice to imagine that, had he lived, he could have carried this through and reversed the trend. However, it is hard to see how he could have succeeded. Time waits for no man. Imagine a ruler today trying to bring back the religious traditions of yester-year! I imagine Julian's attempts to have been seen by progressive contemporaries much as i see any current attempt at increasing the influence of religion.

Ok, enough for now.

[Chelchal]

Knonfoda, that passage isn't actually from the Persian incursion (haha sorry couldn't resist) but from before the Persian siege of Amida in 359 (IMHO the most interesting and best written part of the history, probably since Ammianus personally participated.) I believe it's in Book 18/XVIII, section VI. You might have to read a few paragraphs before coming across it.

The great historian of the Huns, Otto J Maenchen-Helfen, observes how Ammianus, while the finest historian between Tacitus and Procopius, really relished any form of violence against non-Romans, no matter how brutal or treacherous. Numerous examples come to mind; the near annihilation of the Limigantes, the massacre of the Persian civilians in Julian's campaign (who were probably not Persians at all but Aramaic or Arabic peoples instead), the ambush of Saxon raiders after giving them safe passage, and the arranged mass killings of Goths in the Roman army after Adrianople.

Weirdly, one of the few foreigners Ammianus can bring himself to speak respectfully of were the Brahmins of India, whom he calls "men of sublime genius" (Book XXIII, Part VI, Section 33). Now, in my gut I always subconsciously side with the Romans (learning, technology, civilization, law and order, cosmopolitanism) against the barbarians (savagery, anarchy, chaos, backwardness, insularity). But the Roman assumed it was their right to treat these people as not quite human and trample on them whenever they pleased and when you pay attention beyond the rhetoric, Roman conduct is unpalatable to say the least.

The history of Ammianus is one of the great works of world literature. But his tone and style reminds me of nothing so much as the memoirs some self serving German general who served on the Eastern front, emphasizing their successes, cloaking aggression in pious platitudes, and brushing over truly atrocious episodes in a few words.

[Renatus]

Knonfoda, that passage isn't actually from the Persian incursion (haha sorry couldn't resist) but from before the Persian siege of Amida in 359 (IMHO the most interesting and best written part of the history, probably since Ammianus personally participated.) I believe it's in Book 18/XVIII, section VI. You might have to read a few paragraphs before coming across it.

It's Amm. 18.6.15.

[Diocle]

It's Amm. 18.6.15.

Sorry Renatus but it is XVIII.6.16 (It is literally incredible for me I found an error in the post of Renatus!!! I'll remember this day forever!):

"Hoc extracti periculo, cum ad numerosum quendam locum vineis arbustisque pomiferis consitum, Meicarire nomine venissemus, cui fontes dedere vocabulum gelidi, dilapsis accolis omnibus, solum in remoto secessu latentem invenimus militem, qui oblatus duci et locutus varia prae timore, ideoque suspectus, adigente metu qui intentabantur, pandit rerumintegram fidem, docetque quod apud Parisios natus in Galliis, et equestri militans turma, vindictum quondam commissi facionoris timens, ad Persas abierat profugos, exindeque morum probitate spectata, sortita conige liberisque susceptis speculatorem se missum ad nostra, saepe veros nuntios reportasse. At nunc se a Tamsapore et Nohodare optimatibus missum, qui catervas ductaverunt praedatorum, ad eos redire quae didicerat perlaturum. Post haec, adiectis quae agi in parte diversa norat, occiditur."



What beautiful passage, the language is simple to translate (it is late, but late Latin, more similar to Italian!) and Ammianus as always is a great writer.