Julian: Rome’s Last Pagan Emperor

Ancient Lives

by Philip Freeman

"When we think of ancient Rome, it's impossible not to think of Christianity, one of its most notable exports-but what if it hadn't been? This is the question provoked by classicist Philip Freeman in Julian, an appealing new entry in Yale's Ancient Lives series, which tells the story of the old faith's last imperial torchbearer."-Anna Heyward, New York Times Book Review

Flavius Claudius Julianus, or Julian the Apostate, ruled Rome as sole emperor for just a year and a half, from 361 to 363, but during that time he turned the world upside down. Although a nephew of Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor of Rome, Julian fought to return Rome to the old gods who had led his ancestors to build their vast empire.

As emperor, Julian set about reforming the administration, conquering new territories, and reviving ancient religions. He was scorned in his time for repudiating Christianity and demonized as an apostate for willfully rejecting Christ. Through the centuries, Julian has been viewed by many as a tragic figure who sought to save Rome from its enemies and the corrupting influence of Christianity. Christian writers and historians have seen Julian much as a traitor to God and violent oppressor of Christians. Had Julian not been killed by a random Persian spear, he might well have changed all of history.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman History, Religion, Biography Memoir

168 pages, Hardcover

Published September 26, 2023

About the author

I teach Classics and Celtic studies at Luther College in the beautiful little town of Decorah, Iowa. I did my doctoral work at Harvard and taught at Boston University and Washington University in St. Louis before coming to Luther to help run the Classics department. I love teaching and see my writing as an extension of my work in the classroom. I hope you enjoy the books as much as I enjoyed writing them.

Reviews

[LPosse1 Larry]

3.5 Star Review: Julian by Phillip Freeman

Phillip Freeman’s Julian is a good little book—less than 140 pages—and serves as a brief introduction to the Roman emperor who styled himself as a philosopher-king. I’ve read a few of Freeman’s other works (his Caesar biography is top notch), so I was curious to see how he would handle Julian’s story.

Julian came from a Christian family but broke from that tradition and came out openly as a pagan emperor at a time when Christianity was surging. He tried to recapture some of the old Roman magic for a new generation. In some ways, he felt like a “Marcus Aurelius light”—an emperor with intellectual leanings who admired philosophy, but without the lasting depth of Meditations. Julian was a prolific writer. Most of his works are lost. Just a few fragments survived.

Freeman shows Julian’s strengths as a military leader and his willingness to zig when everyone else zagged. But he also reveals the contradictions: Julian could be compassionate and fair, yet he persecuted those with different religious beliefs. The book gives you a good sketch of this complexity, but at under 140 pages, it never dives very deep.

Overall, this is a solid, quick read. I enjoyed it for what it was, but I was left wishing for more detail on such a fascinating and conflicted figure.

[BenAbe]

This is a concise biography of Emperor Flavius Claudius Julianus a.k.a. Julian the Apostate.


Short in length, it perfectly reflects Julian's brief reign. Delicate in separating the man from the way he was perceived by admirers and enemies alike, it humanizes Julian as someone capable of being both stubborn and blind to any resistance to his spiritual vision for the empire yet also a soul with a troubled youth that yearned for companionship, something that, denied in flesh, blood, and bone, more than made up for in the books for which he felt an affinity.


Julian, ever the ascetic and frugal man that he was, enacted exhaustive and sweeping reforms to do away with the excesses of the Roman state and reduce the size and cost of the central bureaucracy running the empire. His reforms with regard to Christianity had the aim of restoring the worship of the old gods which he saw as essential to bringing Rome back to the glorious heights of yesteryear. Initially his approach maintained a peaceful attitude that spoke more of a will to level the playing field for the different faiths within the empire. Though as his plan for reform failed, largely due to the unwelcoming (though Julian might have preferred the word "ungrateful") target audience he began to take a harsher stance. In spite of his continuous claims of peaceful intent Julian seems to have been fully aware of (and even enthusiastic about) the growth of violent action against Christians in Roman lands, though surely not to the exaggerated extent that some accounts, which are largely late, describe. (On the topic of the alleged persecution, I recommend reading H. C. Teitler's 'The Last Pagan Emperor: Julian the Apostate and the War against Christianity')


What I liked most about the author's account is his examination of Julian's religious vision for the empire, specifically his Neoplatonist inspirations and the broader framework he wanted to implement which apparently included a church like organization with its own pagan priestly class and hierarchy with the emperor himself as its head. In the end, this and his other policies only further fueled resentment towards him, angering people on all sides, Christians and pagans alike.

As short as his time on the imperial throne was, he harbored ambitions that reached far beyond his religious reforms, for he sought to emulate Alexander the Great by driving east and wresting glory from the grasp of Persia. Yet sadly, his vision for a rejuvenated empire came to an abrupt end when a Persian spear (or perhaps a malcontent Christian one?) found its way between his ribs.



His reign represents the closest any man had come up until then to reversing the historical march of Christianity...alas, to misquote Reuben's words to Danny Ocean,

"He came. He grabbed. They conquered."



Rating: 3.8/5.

[Arianne X]

Julian the Restorer or Julian the Redeemer

He is only the apostate from a Christian perspective. Why do the Christians get to assign this sobriquet? This has always bothered me. From Julian’s perspective, the Christians were the apostates. I also question the use of the adjective “pagan”, it is a Christian-invented, catch-all label often used as a pejorative by Christians to demean non-Christians. I prefer the usage of pre-Christian or polytheist and will only use the term with scare quotes, i.e., ‘pagan’. This is a flawed and overused historical shorthand starting with title of this book. I have read and enjoyed many books by Philp Freeman and am a little surprised by his fast and lose use of this troubled terminology.

Quick Timeline

Julian became emperor in 361, 55 years after Constantine became the first Christian emperor (306 – 337) of a newly reunified Roman Empire and after the succession of several Christian emperors before himself. Ironically, Julian (non-Christian) was the last emperor of the Constantinian Christian dynasty. At this time, the ruling elite were Christian, but most of the people in the empire were still polytheistic.

Following the death of Constantine in 337, the Roman Empire was divided among his three surviving sons: Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans I. These brothers initially shared power, but through conflict and the death, Constantius II eventually became the sole ruler from 353 – 361, followed by Julian (361 – 363).

The Christian Backstory

Constantine came to power following a century of crisis and crisis breeds cults. The notion arose that stability could be restored by uniformity of belief, Christian belief, or in the case of Julian, traditional polytheism. The emperor Decius tried this in 250 when he ordered everyone to sacrifice to the traditional gods. Diocletian tried this again at the end of the third century by suppressing all non-traditional and foreign beliefs including Christianity. Constantine succeeded with Christianity.

In earlier battles, prior to showdown with Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge where Constantine had his ‘Christian vision’, he had told his army that he had a vision of Apollo and the goddess of victory with the symbol “XXX” to indicate a rule of thirty years being granted to him. Roman generals were in the habit of announcing visions of victory before a battle, I guess Constantine finally got one right. But the ‘Christian vision’ myth came into being many years later. There were no contemporaneous mentions of it at the time of the battle or in the years immediately following the battle. The myth of the vision grew to match Constantine’s embrace of Christianity when he saw that it could be useful politically.

Christianity’s ease of entry and simple teachings made for wide appeal in era when polytheism was starting to give way to monotheism generally. To make Christianity useful, the countless divided Christian sects, many of whom would not speak to each other, and each equally convinced that they were the only true representatives of Jesus, had to be reconciled into a single belief system. Hence, the Council of Nicaea, this was a pragmatic political Roman solution to a thorny Christian theological mess. Making religious belief one in the same with support for the regime was the best way to maintain a hold on power. Likewise, regime support was the best way for Christianity to spread. This was new governing formula for the Middle Ages to come.

Enter Julian

There is nothing like being raised in the Christian religion to witness firsthand the hypocrisy and violence of its leaders, e.g., as a young boy, seeing his father, close relatives and other family murdered by the confirmed Christian emperor Constantius II to secure his position while church leaders looked the other way. I don’t think it is any great mystery why Julian wisely turned against this brutally hypocritical religion and its greedy bishops. In addition to this, Julian was brought up with a thoroughgoing Christian indoctrination but through his other tutors learned of the intellectual world outside of Christian claustrophobia. But to stay alive, he needed to outwardly profess and practice the expected forms of Christian belief.

Julian associated Christian rule with instability, foreign invasion, and imperial stress but he associated the traditional polytheistic gods with the glory days of the Roman Empire. Christianity was the impiety endangering the divine blessings upon which the empire depended and thrived. When he rebelled against the emperor Constantius II, he felt sure that the gods were on his side in his effort to restore the traditional and proven Roman beliefs, no different than a Christian thinks his God is on his side. Julian sincerely believed he was blessed by the traditional gods of Rome and ordained to overthrow the impious Christian apostates and redeem the Roman people.

The ‘Pagan’ Puritan

Of course, it is not my intention to defend Julian’s embrace of the pre-Christian polytheistic beliefs of his ancestors from the ancient world, complete with animal sacrifices. But at least they were animal sacrifices. Christianity got started with a human sacrifice, so which is truly more barbaric? I can in part understand it as a political calculation much like that of Constantine’s embrace of Christianity. Most of the army rank and file were still ‘pagan’ and perhaps Julian felt that his embrace of the literal ‘pagan’ practices would endear him to the army whose support he needed though he himself took the stories of the gods to be metaphors meant to teach a higher lesson. One of his main criticisms of Christianity was that Christians leaders believed that their stories were literally true.

But from what is known, he was a sincere believer in the gods of Rome every bit as much a sincere Christian believes in Jesus. I agree that the death cult of Christianity, and its Judaic host, are an insult to reason and an assault upon humanity, but so were the pre-Christian ‘pagan’ religions. Julian’s initial official religious policy was toleration and coexistence for all religions, and had no official policy of persecuting Christians, but as he grew frustrated in his effort to promote his version of ‘pagan’ region, he looked the other way when his coreligionists attacked and even murdered Christians and he finally turned to persecuting selected Christians. Julian, like any true believer, wanted to end division among ‘pagans’ to reach a purity of belief with his beliefs being the correct ones of course, no different than Christian leaders. But pre-Christian ‘pagan’ beliefs and practices were by definition diverse and nonexclusive. There were no defining ‘pagan’ creeds, there was no such thing as an orthodox ‘pagan’ as there was an orthodox Christian. Julian was not promoting traditional ‘pagan’ belief, he was pursuing something new, orthodox ‘paganism’ with a defining creed and canonical scripture. Julian was a kind of puritanical ‘pagan; if one can imagine such a thing. In imitation of the Christians he despised, he tried to create an orthodox ‘pagan’ priesthood dedicated to asceticism and good works of charity. He gruelingly admired Christian organization and wanted to copy it for his new ‘pagan’ church.

Julian also promoted the ‘pagan’ religion by trying to divide the various factions within Christianity against each other which was not hard to do, he had hoped this would lead to doctrinal confusion and chaos within Christianity. Christians often fought more viciously among themselves than with ‘pagans’. To weaken Christianity, he also partnered with the Jews who saw Christianity as a heretical sect based on a false interpretation of Jewish scriptures. However, his religious concerns and philosophical interests made him tone death to other imperil concerns, especially when came to economics.

There is a part of Julian’s biography that has always puzzled me. I can understand how a man educated in classics, steeped in Greek philosophy, history and literature, and skilled in logic, rhetoric and debate could dismiss the claims of Christianity as ludicrous superstations, but how could he then embrace the pre-Christian polytheistic claims, beliefs, and practices which are just as ludicrous as Christianity? Philosophically, he was a Neoplatonist which shares many characteristics with Christianity about the ‘Oneness’ and ‘The Good’.


The Tragic Error in Persia

This is the error of all true believers and Julian was one of them. It would have been better to let the Christians in his army fight as committed Christians secure in their faith and confident that their God was with them; the same for the ‘pagan’ soldiers, with the assistance of their gods. It is essential that an army have God or gods on their side, every army does. Purging the Christian elements from the legions was a fatal error. But this is the fatal error of a true believer. Julian would have been better served by being pragmatic and encouraging the religious beliefs of his soldiers, Christian or pagan as a motivational support strategy. But this is something a true believer cannot do. Soldiers motivated by ‘true’ beliefs are the best kind, whether or not beliefs are really true is entirely beside the point. The problem was that Julian had fought and won with the benefit of true belief in the past, but he did realize his Christian army had done the same and needed their true beliefs to operate as a motivated fighting force. This drastic mislocution led to the death of Julian and devastating loss in Persia with devastating long-term implications for the Roman world. But even at Julian’s death, the majority of people in the Roman Empire were still not Christian.

Factual or Typographical Error

On P. 15, Maximinus (Maximinus Daza) is mistakenly named as Constantine's opponent at the Milvian Bridge. It was Maxentius that Constantine fought and defeated at the Milvian Bridge. But as the author notes, at this point even the most informed citizens across the empire had trouble keeping track of who was in charge.

My Coda

Reverence replaces Literacy

Christianity is intellectually shallow, but the grip of this cult is still socially deep in our own time. It is a fitting religion for the anti-literate society found in the U.S. Early on, Julian himself identified this Jewish cult as a belief system fit only for fools and slaves, a critique repeated by Nietzsche in the nineteenth century and still very relevant today. This is after all a cult that started in a poor and troubled remote corner of the Roman Empire. The fools are back in power in the U.S. and the cult is more dangerous today than has been in many centuries.

Ironically, the fanatical Bishop of Alexandria, murderer of Hypatia, did some inadvertent good in spite of his own evil. Julian’s book, ‘Against the Galileans’ was lost, most likely intentionally destroyed by Christians, but much of it was preserved in the form of extensive quoting by Cyril in his attempt to create point by point refutation which only demonstrates how effective it was in refuting Christianity. The same thing happened in the third century when Origen inadvertently preserved the work of the anti-Christian philosopher Celsus in his book ‘Against Celsus’. The very witty work of Celsus would have otherwise been lost or destroyed without the efforts of the pious Origen who himself was condemned as heretic in the sixth century by Justinian. Early Christians had a fetish about destroying non-Christian literature, art, and architecture.

Quick Christian Counterfactual

If Julian had not been killed in battle by a Persian spear, or perhaps assassinated by Roman spear, could the scourge of Christianity have been reversed? Julian only reigned for a year and a half. Or before this, if Maxentius defeated Constantine at the battle of the Milvian Bridge, maybe Christianity would have remained just a cult.

[David Parish]

A short, solid read about a relatively minor and very short-lived emporer who followed in Constantine's family line. Freeman writes with an academic tilt, with few frills and relatively little deviations into conjecture or imaginative story-telling. If you don't love unadorned history (I do), this is not for you. Just the facts, ma'am. All good, though, because Julian's early life was filled with sufficient drama (would he be executed by his uncle as were his father and brother, or allowed to live) and his later life with unexpected war heroics and, ultimately, his effort to undo Christianity as the official religion of the empire and replace it with, of all things, paganism. As an aside, Freeman does a nice job of describing the tension between the religions and how those tensions spilled into the politics of the empire. The most interesting tidbit for me was how, in an effort to have the Jews side with him against the Christians, Julian began to rebuild the Jewish temple in Jersualem that had been destroyed in 70 AD by Titus. However, since the Jews believed the temple would be rebuilt only when the Messiah returned to earth, and had no reason to believe that Julian was, in fact, the Messiah, the effort was doomed from the start, and failed spectacularly.

[Darmok]

An entry in Yale University Press' Ancient Lives series, Julian: Rome's Last Pagan Emperor is a brief (45,000 word) introduction to a fascinating figure.

What It's About

Nephew to Rome's first Christian emperor, Julian had a solitary, bookish childhood, immersed in both Christian scriptures and Greek classics. Passionate about pagan philosophy, he was also a skilled and ambitious leader, winning victories in Gaul and then launching a civil war against Constantius II.

Fortunately for Julian, that war was cut short by Constantius II sudden death. Julian became emperor. Then he did something shocking: he publicly apostatisized from Christianity and devoted the resources of the empire towards a return toward paganism. Dying less than two years later during a disastrous war in Persia, Julian's thorough yet hasty and unsuccesful policies were undone.

What I Thought

As evident, this is a fascinating story that would be interesting no matter who told it. That's fortunate, since Philip Freeman isn't the most exciting storyteller.

Rather than subsisting on the political history of Julian's reign, I wish Freeman would have filled up on cultural and religious history. For example, he references Julian's own philosophical, and potentially magical beliefs, but doesn't offer much detail. He also mentions a diversity of beliefs among scholars and officials, from avowed pagans to nominal Christians. I would have liked more on the religious environment that Julian was upending.

Nonetheless, the book is competently written and has encouraged me to read further about Julian. It's not uninvitingly academic, either. Recommend!

[ExtraGravy]

I want more, so much more but this is what we have. Time winnows, and not fairly.

[Benjamin Phillips]

Actually a very good introduction. The Ancient Lives series has some bangers (though not Vergil). It’s a very thorough but calm biography.

[Chris]

A very brief introduction to Julian. For the general reader, even lighter fare than Browning's work.

[Alexandra]

My knowledge of Roman history goes: not great to okay for the Republican period; not bad for the Julio-Claudians; verrrry sketchy and potted post the Year of Four Emperors, right up to... like, the fall of Constantinople. There are bits and persons in there I know about! But it's not connected up.

Anyway then I learned there was a newish (2023) biography of Julian, and I was excited.

Julian "the Apostate" is one of those fascinating characters who pop up in Roman (and other) history: they don't last long but they have an outsized legacy because of a key thing or moment. In Julian's case, it's that he is the nephew of Constantine - our man who moved the Roman Empire's capital to the city he modestly named for himself, and also paved the way for Christianity to become the dominant religion in said empire. Was Constantine a "real" Christian? What do you even mean by that? Not relevant, for the purposes of this biography (and, uh, completely impossible to answer anyway). What IS important is that after Constantine, the empire was basically expecting a Christian emperor. And so when Julian comes along and goes PSYCH! I've been pretending for a decade or so!, there are a lot of people who are Unimpressed.

This is a short biography: we're talking 133 pages, and they're not huge pages either. So there's not super detailed info about every day of Julian's life. What Freeman does present, though, is an excellent overview of the main stages of Julian's life: upbringing in Asia Minor after his now-emperor cousin kills the rest of their family (... yeah...), then raised to Caesar (sub-emperor) and sent to fight in Gaul - with no military experience! but apparently sometimes reading about a thing does make you good at it! Then back towards Constantinople, expecting to fight the cousin, who conveniently (fr) dies on the way, leaving Julian uncontested as Augustus. At which point he begins to try bringing back pagan ways, and eventually oppressing Christians.

And then he heads off to Persia. Apparently he paid more attention to Alexander than to, like, pretty much everyone else. It doesn't go well.

Freeman's writing is immensely readable. I don't think you need to have much knowledge of Roman history to understand what Julian is doing; Freeman presents enough background that the various issues - like the place of Christians in society by this point - is easy to grasp. He doesn't go into the weeds about what the Senate and others are doing at this point, or even what's happening in the rest of the empire; this is a very focused, narrow biography, and it works for that reason.

[Libri Sine Tenebris]

** I received an ARC from Yale University Press in exchange for an honest review **

“Although a nephew of the first Christian emperor of Rome, Julian soon openly abandoned his family’s faith and fought to return Rome to the old gods, who had led his ancestors to build one of the greatest empires the world had ever known.”

"Julian" by Philip Freeman delves into a topic that oftentimes is glossed over in Roman history classes: Rome’s uneven transition from paganism to Christianity, from the conversion of the imperial family to the common people.
This work offers a nuanced depiction of emperor Julian, showing both the pagan hero —a sort of Roman remnant of Sophocles "Antigone" and her unwavering faith— and the traitor to a new faith, without overindulging in either of them. Furthermore, we not only see Julian from the average historian perspective (the emperor along with his military campaigns), but also from a more personal point of view: his childhood, parental figures, academic interests, and religious ideas.
Despite being a nonfiction book, "Julian" avoids becoming monotone via a novel-like writing style that still steers clear of sounding trivial.
Something I particularly appreciated was the author’s honesty when citing the sources: Freeman established which ancient works are the most trustworthy and explained which could omit or outright lie in pursue of their own interests, whether it was to praise or harm Julian’s image. The book also includes many citations from the emperor’s work (excerpts from letters, hymns, compositions against the Christian faith, etc.) that further expanded on his ideology.
In short, I would recommend "Julian" to anyone who is fond of Roman history, especially students, since in addition to being a fairly short, educational book, it provides a map, a chronology, a genealogy and an extensive bibliography.

** Thank you to Yale University Press and Philip Freeman for providing an ARC **

-------------------------------------------------------

** He recibido un ARC de Yale University Press a cambio de una reseña honesta **

"Julian" de Philip Freeman profundiza en un tema que a menudo se pasa por alto en las clases de historia romana: la transición desigual de Roma del paganismo al cristianismo, desde la conversión de la familia imperial hasta la gente común.
Esta obra ofrece un retrato matizado del emperador Juliano, mostrando tanto al héroe pagano —una especie de residuo romano de la "Antígona" de Sófocles y su fe inquebrantable— como al traidor para una nueva fe, sin excederse con ninguno de los dos. Además, no solo vemos a Juliano desde la perspectiva del historiador medio (el emperador junto con sus campañas militares), sino también desde un punto de vista más personal: su infancia, figuras paternas, intereses académicos e ideas religiosas.
A pesar de ser un libro de no ficción, "Julian" evita volverse monótono a través de un estilo de escritura similar a una novela que sigue evitando sonar trivial.
Algo que he apreciado especialmente ha sido la honestidad del autor al citar las fuentes: Freeman establece qué obras antiguas son las más confiables y explica cuáles podían omitir o directamente mentir en pos de sus propios intereses, ya fuera para alabar o dañar la imagen de Juliano. El libro también incluye muchas citas de la obra del emperador (extractos de cartas, himnos, composiciones contra la fe cristiana, etc.) que amplían aún más su ideología.
En definitiva, recomendaría "Julian" a cualquier aficionado a la historia de Roma, especialmente a los estudiantes, ya que además de ser un libro didáctico bastante breve, ofrece un mapa, una cronología, una genealogía y una extensa bibliografía.

** Gracias a Yale University Press y Philip Freeman por proporcionarme un ARC **

[MT]

- เหมือนชีวิตพึงมาอินancient historyก็ต้นปีนี้เอง(โดยเฉพาะยุคโรมัน) newbieสุด จริงๆมีหลายเล่มที่อ่านหรือฟังอยู่ แต่แลดูจะไม่จบซักเล่มเลย คิดว่าปัญหาน่าจะมาจากการเลือกอ่านแต่ปวศกึ่งวิพากษ์ไม่ก็งานวิทยานิพนธ์เยอะเกินไป พอได้มาเริ่มอ่านอะไรที่มันว่าด้วยปวศโดยตรงเลยก็มีเซและหลับอยู่เหมือนกัน (ต้องละลายพฤติกรรมด้วยการดูสารคดี ซึ่งช่วยได้เยอะมากๆ)

- ส่วนเล่มนี้ฟังเอา บวกกับงานมันสั้นๆเลยจบ อาขฟังรู้เรื่องบ้าง ไม่รู้เรื่องบ้าง หลับบ้าง แต่ก็ถือเป็นนสที่เป็นกลจที่ดีที่ข้าพเจ้าจะได้อ่านเล่มดองอื่นๆในโหมดโรมันให้จบ

[Lasse Thomsen]

Philip tells the story of the short lived emperor Julian, about how his short life shaped history and about how the pagan world died with him. Philip also dwells on how life good have looked like, if Julian had not died so young and so early. A very good and short read.

[Richard Cho]

Flavius Glaudius Julianus

Against the Galileans...
-------------------------------------------

But unlike adherents of many other sacred organizations, the Christians were known for welcoming women and slaves into their community, as well as for their acts of public, universal charity in a world in which the untended poor routinely starved to death.

the Edict of Milan: officially declaring religious freedom in the Roman Empire from that day forward.

Constantine's mother, Helena, the future saint.

In Neoplatonism, the highest of these ideas was the One, a divine force that is the creative and sustaining source of the universe. Neoplatonists did not reject the traditional gods of the Greco-Roman pantheon but saw them instead as representations of the higher universal ideal.

But the quality of Julian most commented on by those who knew him was not his physical appearance but his irrepressible energy. He seemed never to sleep and would spend nights reading whole books, talking endlessly to companions, or writing letters to friends far away. This energy would serve him well in Gaul as he struggled to right a war, govern a province, and navigate the treacherous waters of the royal family.

Of the many charges his enemies would bring against him in years to come, sexual excess or even a moderate carnal interest in either sex was not among them. Julian seems to have had a genuine ascetic temperament and inclination to celibacy. In an imperial court and a wider world, pagan and Christian, drenched in indulgence and indiscretions of the flesh, Julian stands out as a person of almost monastic dedication to sexual purity.

Julian was by nature a frugal man who despised wastefulness and excess. In his personal life he did not indulge in sex, drinking, or gluttony, although all the temptations of the world were readily accessible to him. He was a genuine ascetic who slept on a straw mattress, hated the theater and public games, ate simply, and drank sparingly. He valued philosophy, friendship, and the gods, not wine or gold.

Julian also took the unusual step of proclaiming universal religious tolerance. He assured his subjects that followers of all religious traditions - pagan, Christian, Jewish, and others - would be treated with equal respect as long as they posed no threat to the general peace and security of the empire.

Whether we agree with these modern interpretations or not, it is hard not to admire the spirit of Julian in his struggle for what he believed was right.

[Emma Wong]

THIS ... BOOK ... IS ... AWESOME. I would have given it six stars if I could. It's very short, but packed with information, and it is written almost like a novel. It's an exceedingly easy read.

If you are unaware, the Emperor Constantine was the first Roman emperor to make Christianity legal and also favored. It later became the official state religion. People debate why he did this. Whether it was a last ditch attempt to yoke together increasingly disparate provinces or whether it was due to his mother, Helena's, religious zeal, we'll never really know. But Julian, his nephew, represented a reaction to increasing Christian influence in Rome. Again, motives are always difficult to uncover, even when a political figure lived in recent memory, but it's a safe bet that Julian, a very bookish ascetic, favored a more logical ascetic Neo-Platonist type of religion, and metaphysics, and so rebelled against his Christian upbringing.

In any event, if you have ANY interest in either Roman history or the history of religions, this book is a winner. It's great for a plane ride of 4 hours or more. You can likely finish it in that time.

[Ehsan Nazari]

فلاویوس کلادیوس ژولیانوس، یکی از جذاب ترین و بحث برانگیزترین چهره های تاریخ روم است.
شخصیتی تراژیک که با ملقمه ای از تنفر نسبت به تزویر مسیحیت(مرگ خانواده اش در دستان امپراتور معتقد مسیحی) و عشق به دوران طلایی فلسفه یونان(در پی تبعیدهای پیاپی وی و برادرش،وی با معلمین مکاتب مخلف فلسفه آشنا شد)، تصمیم گرفت خلاف جریان آب شنا کند و کمر به ریشه کن کردن مسیحیت از جامعه و دربار روم و بازگشت آن به پرستش خدایان باستانی روم ببندد. ژولیانوس تا پایان حکومتش، لیاقت خود را بعنوان یک فرمانده شجاع، یک متفکر حاذق و یک دولتمرد آگاه به اثبات رساند، اما در نهایت با اصرار آرمانگرایانه خود بر نابودی مسیحیت و تحمیل عقاید خود بر جامعه، موجبات نابودی خود و اعتبارش را فراهم کرد.

[Harry B]

An incredible account of the late Roman emperor Julian, known to Christians as the "Apostate", and had he succeeded in his quest to re-establish paganism as the dominant state religion of the Roman empire, he might well have been called the "Great" by pagans who came after him. Alas, things did not go well in the end with Julian.

Freeman's account is one of the few historical narratives on Julian's life, predictably because his reign was very short (short of three years) and his life itself was cut-short too early (he died the same age as Alexander the Great at 32).

Julian was sincere to his friends, frugal in many ways (he disdained the opposite sex), and was deeply religious. He was erudite, energetic, and formidable to his Christian enemies. Alas, Julian had his shortcomings too. He was uncompromising and perhaps simply obstinate. He suffered the same faults as fanatical Christians are known for. Except, he was one (albeit remarkable) man, along with a few others, against an entire movement, that of Christianity. The picture should conjure drops of water in an onrushing river, and not an ocean, since during the early second half of the fourth century AD, Christianity was still a minority in the empire. He therefore was quite brave in trying to curtail and eventually defeat Christianity as an institution of the empire.

The emperor eventually died in the Middle East during his disastrous campaign in Persia. His promising career up to this point would have baffled his close supporters, as it does me, yet I suppose it should not surprise in hindsight. Julian was a risk taker, taking inspiration from the accounts he had read of other great men of antiquity (including Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar). His campaign in the east was a huge gamble because he ought to have known, and I think he did know, that his army was too demoralised after his religious campaign against Christianity (his army had a substantial Christian portion), and there were too many suspicions arising from bad omens and enemies that the campaign was lost from the very beginning. This is the long-short of the months leading up to his death, and he lost the gamble. It is unknown if he was murdered by his own (Christian) men or by the Persians, but it is understandable that he placed himself in a precarious situation by simultaneously antagonising both the Christians with his heavy handed attitude against them, and pagans who wanted to maintain the status quo (that of peaceful co-existence with Christians and other religions), and who did not entirely share Julian's views on his Neoplatonic views on paganism.

I sped through this book after buying it on impulse from a local bookshop. I have been meaning to read on Julian's life, and I am glad I spent the 200 HK dollars on a relatively short read. Every page was packed full of straightforward and insightful information on the man's life, and I am pleasantly surprised at the amount that we know today of an emperor who died nearly 1,700 years ago, who reigned for no more than three years, and who had been vilified for centuries by those who won the religious competition, the Christians. One may think, as I did, that we just did not know much about him to construct a coherent account of his life. I am glad to say I have been rightly corrected from this erroneous view.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to ancient Roman enthusiasts out there. A 6/5 read.

[Simon Donoghue]

An easy read which is intended to inform those unfamiliar with the politics and personalities of the Constantinian imperial family, a line that ended with Julian. The results can be uneasy, because Freeman obviously admires Julian (not a crime, many people do) but he allows this affinity to inform impossible conclusions about what the Augustus must have been thinking. The primary sources for Julian's life were either (1) written by Julian himself, whom Freeman admits is naturally biased even when obviously in the wrong or (2) written by his enemies, chiefly the Christians, long after Julian's providential death (for them, anyway) in battle after a brief reign. The list of things he tried to do once Julian came out of the pagan closet was dazzling in its ambitions. Freeman is at his best when he describes the shifting political pressures on the early Church from various emperors. Had Constantine and his sons not been lip-service orthodox, Nicea could have plumped for Arianism. As it was, the reign was too brief to restore the Roman gods, or really any of the others. It wasn't just Julian's lack of longevity that defeated his restoration, but Roman religion itself. Paganism has no dogma. Unlike Christianity, which was evangelical by nature and had discovered the utility of political structures such as dioceses and social services for the poor, paganism fostered incredibly personal and idiosyncratic relationships between the worshipper and the chosen god. Until Julian's accession in 361, it had "favored cult" status since the 310s because of the emerging narrative of the Milvian bridge apparition. Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky and received divine direction to paint crosses on his army's shields. As Freeman points out, the story was not uncommon, and it is entirely possible that in its earliest incarnation, "in hoc signo vincit" referred to a good luck sign. But the new emperor quickly began to embroider it until it turned into a sign of the Christian god's favor for his imperial cause and house.

As I said, a fast read and a decent enough introduction. It did make me order an edition of Julian's letters and other writings, so from a goals point of view Julian, Rome's Last Pagan Emperor gets the job done.

[Simon]

An easy read which is intended to inform those unfamiliar with the politics and personalities of the Constantinian imperial family, a line that ended with Julian. The results can be uneasy, because Freeman obviously admires Julian (not a crime, many people do) but he allows this affinity to inform impossible conclusions about what the Augustus must have been thinking. The primary sources for Julian's life were either (1) written by Julian himself, whom Freeman admits is naturally biased even when obviously in the wrong or (2) written by his enemies, chiefly the Christians, long after Julian's providential death (for them, anyway) in battle after a brief reign. The list of things he tried to do once Julian came out of the pagan closet was dazzling in its ambitions. Freeman is at his best when he describes the shifting political pressures on the early Church from various emperors. Had Constantine and his sons not been lip-service orthodox, Nicea could have plumped for Arianism. As it was, the reign was too brief to restore the Roman gods, or really any of the others. It wasn't just Julian's lack of longevity that defeated his restoration, but Roman religion itself. Paganism has no dogma. Unlike Christianity, which was evangelical by nature and had discovered the utility of political structures such as dioceses and social services for the poor, paganism fostered incredibly personal and idiosyncratic relationships between the worshipper and the chosen god. Until Julian's accession in 361, it had "favored cult" status since the 310s because of the emerging narrative of the Milvian bridge apparition. Constantine claimed to have seen a cross in the sky and received divine direction to paint crosses on his army's shields. As Freeman points out, the story was not uncommon, and it is entirely possible that in its earliest incarnation, "in hoc signo vincit" referred to a good luck sign. But the new emperor quickly began to embroider it until it turned into a sign of the Christian god's favor for his imperial cause and house.

As I said, a fast read and a decent enough introduction. It did make me order an edition of Julian's letters and other writings, so from a goals point of view Julian, Rome's Last Pagan Emperor gets the job done.

[Ian Williams]

Flavius Claudius Julianus, otherwise known as Julian the Apostate, was the Emperor of Rome from 361AD to 363AD. His uncle was the Emperor Constantine who made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, displacing the old gods. He also murdered most of Julian’s family.

Julian was brought up as a Christian. A gifted student, he became a scholar who was drawn to the writings of pagan writers. He developed a loathing of Christianity. Converting to the old religion, he wanted to reclaim the old pagan gods for Rome. He thought it prudent to keep his feelings secret, especially from Constantius, the son of Constantine, who become Emperor after his father’s death.

It was as a soldier that Julian found his calling when he halted the German incursions into Gaul. His success came to Constantius’ notice and when Constantius was on his death bed, his last wish was that Julian should become Emperor.

As Emperor, Julian came out as a pagan. He reopened temples, appointed pagans to the top administrative jobs, and made many attempts to return Rome to the old faith. If he had not died fighting the Persians (an unnecessary war that Julian foolishly started), he might have been more successful. With Julian’s death, the cause for the old gods died also. If Julian had lived and had remained Emperor and had lived out his natural life, he was 32 when he died, the old gods may have come back and prevailed. But they didn’t. In 391AD, Emperor Theodosius banned pagan worship and closed down pagan temples.

At 133 pages, this is a short book. It is concise and well written and shows Julian as a gifted scholar, an effective general, and an emperor whose short lived reign was too brief to evaluate. It is certain, however, that if he had lived, he would have relentlessly pushed for the return of paganism and we can only guess at the outcome. Instead of being remembered as Julian the Apostate, he may well have been remembered as Julian the Great.

[Louise]

Professor Philip Freeman has written a brief and well structured biography of Julian who became Emperor of Rome in 361 at age 30 upon the untimely death of his cousin, the Emperor Constantius. This cousin had insured his own reign by eliminating all male relatives including Julius’s brother and father. Julian was the youngest royal male, and that may have saved him.

Freeman fleshes out the highlights of Julian’s life:

 His studies in Greek “college towns” where he gravitated to neoplatonism and came to believe that Rome’s gods were the reason for its growth and success.

 His success as an administrator and army commander when sent to Gaul by Constantius.

 As emperor his attempts to promote paganism (and curtail the growth of Christianity).

 His raising and leading a giant army to stop Persian incursions on the border.

 His heavy handed promotion of pagan deities and rituals in Antioch .

 His bad decisions in Antioch followed by more bad decisions such as dividing the army and burning a supply ship.

 Death at age 32 in a battle with the Persians. The army was defeated at this battle and had to make concessions to get home safely.

There is a lot of content for each of these bullets. For instance, you learn that one anti- Christian strategy was to get Christians of different theological interpretations to discredit each other. Another was to get the Jews to his cause by proposing to rebuild the Temple destroyed by Roman emperors in 70 CE.

Freeman cites what is known of relationships with family and scholars. He notes that the army he leads has many Christians. Freeman quotes from letters, hymns and prayers, and other writings. All of this helps to build a portrait of this young man.

There is a lot packed into this short book.

I highly recommend this book. It will be especially welcome for busy people (it can be read in 1 or 2 sittings) who are interested in Julian and want to know more about this unusual emperor.

[Xavier Ruiz Trullols]

This is a concise yet thorough biography of one of the Roman Empire’s most intriguing figures. Despite his brief reign, Julian left a lasting impact, particularly due to his efforts to reverse the Christianization of the empire and restore pagan traditions. Freeman presents his subject with an academic rigor, avoiding unnecessary embellishments or speculative storytelling, which makes for a focused and well-structured historical account.

While Julian is primarily remembered for his failed attempt to reinstate paganism, Freeman delves deeper, providing valuable insight into the emperor’s complex character, political ambitions and military campaigns. One of the book’s strengths is its examination of the religious tensions of the time, highlighting how they influenced imperial politics and governance. The book also sheds light on an often-overlooked aspect of Julian’s policies, such as his relatively favorable stance towards Jewish communities, including his remarkable but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, destroyed by Titus in 70 AD.

Freeman also does a commendable job of situating Julian within the broader historical context. The book opens with a concise yet informative overview of the significant events and figures that preceded Julian’s reign, helping readers understand the political and religious landscape he inherited. This background is particularly useful for those less familiar with the period and adds depth to the narrative.

[Guillaume]

A fascinating subject, an underwhelming modern biography.

Julian’s life needs no embellishment: orphaned, exiled, shaped by Greek culture, converted to paganism, and eventually elevated to the throne, ruling for just two years before dying on the battlefield during a daring offensive.

It’s extraordinary material on its own, the story of a rebel who could have changed the world as we know it.

Unfortunately, Freeman repeatedly fills the gaps in the sources with ruthless simplification and confident psychological speculation. “It’s likely” and “he most probably wanted to” become substitutes for evidence, producing conclusions that might be right but are in fact pulled out of thin air.

Ironically, the book is at its best when Julian speaks for himself, even though it misses what is for me the most emblematic quote from the emperor, a shocking statement for the 21st century reader:

“Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of”

Freeman’s Julian is a passable introduction to the general reader with a mild interest in history, but the methodology is too loose to make this the work of scholarship it could have been.

[Annarella]

Flavius Claudius Julianus or Julian the Apostate is usually a line in a history book. As a matter of he's one of the most intriguing character in a fascinating moment and the last of Costantine's family.
His father and the male of his part of family were slaughtered and only he and his brother survived.
He was an excellernt writer, a philosopher, a great general and one of the biggest what-if in western history as he tried to abolish some of the privileges of Christian Church and take back some powers.
We will never know if he would have succeeded, if you want to read a good alt history about what could have happened I would advice The Dragon Waiting by John M Ford.
Julian is quite a divisive character but this book is well balanced, compelling and informative.
There's a good analysis and there's no idelogic judgement on Julian
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine

[Jammies]

Very short, which makes sense given that Julian’s life and reign were brief, but I still expected a bit more depth. I listened to the audiobook, and unfortunately the narrator really took away from the experience. His delivery makes it sound as if he finds the material dull, which in turn makes it hard to stay engaged even when the subject itself is fascinating.

I still enjoy Philip Freeman’s work, which is why I pushed through to the end, but this one did not hold my attention the way his other books have. I might try Gore Vidal’s Julian next, though I am not sure since, from what I remember skimming it before, it is told from multiple points of view and reads more like a historical novel than a straightforward biography.

[Darko]

Short but fascinating glimpse into the life of one of Rome’s most intriguing emperors. Julian played a key role during a crucial time when the Roman Empire was transitioning to Christianity. Even though the book is brief, it does a great job of bringing Julian to life—showing his sharp intellect, military successes, and his controversial attempt to bring back pagan traditions.

Freeman’s writing is accessible and engaging, making this an easy read for anyone curious about Roman history. It’s a great introduction to an emperor who often gets overlooked but had a big impact on the empire during a time of major change.

[Patti Morgan]

This book is part of the "Ancient Lives" series from Yale University Press.
I have read two other books from this series and enjoyed both of them. This particular book filled in the time period when Rome was vacillating between paganism and Christianity, despite Constantine's conversion and the period after his death. Julian was the last official pagan emperor of the Roman Empire, and his reign was an attempt to return to the old ways of polytheism.

I recommend this book for those who want to read more of the Roman Empire after Constantine and its movements toward its eventual decline and demise.

[Rebecca Berus]

Julian: Rome’s Last Pagan Emperor offers a fascinating portrait of one of the most consequential and tragic figures of late Roman history. Philip Freeman brings Julian to life not simply as the Apostate, but as a complex emperor struggling to reshape Rome’s religious and political direction.

I especially appreciated the balanced perspective on Julian’s reforms, his rejection of Christianity, and his ultimately doomed attempt to revive the old gods. A compelling read for anyone interested in Roman history and the turning point between pagan and Christian Rome.

[Andrew]

This is a fascinating biography of an emperor that i knew nothing about and a fairly well balanced one as well, apparently there were centuries of mud being flung at him by the christian church.

Scholar, general, satirist and philosopher one can only wonder at the world we would live in now if his reign hadn't been cut short on a Persian military campaign.

An enlightening and compelling read, my only moan is that it was far too short.

[Matthew]

Short overview of Julian and his life and its meaning. The analysis of literary texts is excellent.

I would have liked some more structural analysis beyond the literary primary sources. A sneak peak to what a larger book could look like. What parts of late antique society, economy, bureaucracy might have helped or hindered Julian's efforts?

[Brian Hanson]

A workmanlike, decidedly unsensational, survey of the life of Julian "The Apostate". Anyone who has read Gore Vidal's novel of this Emperor's life will find it somewhat dry. But they will come away better informed.