Meaning what? That Christianity didn't form in a vacuum void of anything except the Christian Gawd and His Bastard (Jesus was most definitely born out of wedlock) Son?
This...means what relative to anything again?
WI: Julian the Apostate lived
- Thread starter Zebra Cakes
- Start date
Meaning what? That Christianity didn't form in a vacuum void of anything except the Christian Gawd and His Bastard (Jesus was most definitely born out of wedlock) Son?
This...means what relative to anything again?
Wait, are you claiming that Syncreticism is paganism?
But, but ...
Christianity is a syncretic religion. It was so much a product of its time that it hurts.
Julian is a rather sympathetic figure, IMHO, and especially when you read some of his work that he authored.
See here for his comments on the citizens of Antioch, who had insulted him and his beard
Here is an extract
However the song that I now sing has been composed in prose, and it contains much violent abuse, directed not, by Zeus, against others -- how could it be, since the law forbids? -- but against the poet and author himself. For there is no law to prevent one's writing either praise or criticism of oneself. Now as for praising myself, though I should be very glad to do so, I have no reason for that; but for criticising myself I have countless reasons, and first I will begin with my face. For though nature did not make this any too handsome or well-favoured or give it the bloom of youth, I myself out of sheer perversity and ill-temper have added to it this long beard of mine, to punish it, as it would seem, for this very crime of not being handsome by nature. For the same reason I put up with the lice that scamper about in it as though it were a thicket for wild beasts. As for eating greedily or drinking with my mouth wide open, it is not in my power; for I must take care, I suppose, or before I know it I shall eat up some of my own hairs along with my crumbs of bread. In the matter of being kissed and kissing I suffer no inconvenience whatever. And yet for this as for other purposes a beard is evidently troublesome, since it does not allow me to press shaven "lips to other lips more sweetly" -- because they are smooth, I suppose -- as has been said already by one of those who with the aid of Pan and Calliope composed poems in honour of Daphnis. But you say that I ought to twist ropes from it. Well I am willing to provide you with ropes if only you have the strength to pull them and their roughness does not do dreadful damage to your "unworn and tender hands." And let no one suppose that I am offended by your satire. For I myself furnish you with an excuse for it by wearing my chin as goats do, when I might, I suppose, make it smooth and bare as handsome youths wear theirs, and all women, who are endowed by nature with loveliness. But you, since even in your old age you emulate your own sons and daughters by your soft and delicate way of living, or perhaps by your effeminate dispositions, carefully make your chins smooth, and your manhood you barely reveal and slightly indicate by your foreheads, not by your jaws as I do.
See here for his comments on the citizens of Antioch, who had insulted him and his beard
Here is an extract
However the song that I now sing has been composed in prose, and it contains much violent abuse, directed not, by Zeus, against others -- how could it be, since the law forbids? -- but against the poet and author himself. For there is no law to prevent one's writing either praise or criticism of oneself. Now as for praising myself, though I should be very glad to do so, I have no reason for that; but for criticising myself I have countless reasons, and first I will begin with my face. For though nature did not make this any too handsome or well-favoured or give it the bloom of youth, I myself out of sheer perversity and ill-temper have added to it this long beard of mine, to punish it, as it would seem, for this very crime of not being handsome by nature. For the same reason I put up with the lice that scamper about in it as though it were a thicket for wild beasts. As for eating greedily or drinking with my mouth wide open, it is not in my power; for I must take care, I suppose, or before I know it I shall eat up some of my own hairs along with my crumbs of bread. In the matter of being kissed and kissing I suffer no inconvenience whatever. And yet for this as for other purposes a beard is evidently troublesome, since it does not allow me to press shaven "lips to other lips more sweetly" -- because they are smooth, I suppose -- as has been said already by one of those who with the aid of Pan and Calliope composed poems in honour of Daphnis. But you say that I ought to twist ropes from it. Well I am willing to provide you with ropes if only you have the strength to pull them and their roughness does not do dreadful damage to your "unworn and tender hands." And let no one suppose that I am offended by your satire. For I myself furnish you with an excuse for it by wearing my chin as goats do, when I might, I suppose, make it smooth and bare as handsome youths wear theirs, and all women, who are endowed by nature with loveliness. But you, since even in your old age you emulate your own sons and daughters by your soft and delicate way of living, or perhaps by your effeminate dispositions, carefully make your chins smooth, and your manhood you barely reveal and slightly indicate by your foreheads, not by your jaws as I do.
Only, they were not insulting him because of his beard.
They were insulting him because he put dozens to the torture (and some died of it) because a pagan temple went on fire while he was in the city.
He wanted to find an arsonist to blame, but it turned out that the temple went on fire by accident.
Just to topple that he also crushed the city economy, imposing an unreasonable price list which crippled its marked for a few months.
He probably meant well, imposing low prices to get the symathy of people, but the result was a disaster.
Only he must have thought that "you hate me because I'm a philosopher and you're a bunch of ignorants" sounds better than "you hate me because I had you robbed and tortured"
Last edited:
From the description of the work in question:
Julian's answer was this satire on himself which he addresses directly to the people of Antioch. But he could not resist scolding them, and the satire on his own habits is not consistently maintained.
"I therefore gave you the opportunity to elect and to have in your Senate the richest men among those who administer my own revenues and have charge of coining the currency. You however did not elect the capable men among these, but you seized the opportunity to act like a city by no means well-ordered, though quite in keeping with your character. Would you like me to remind you of a single instance? You nominated a Senator, and then before his name had been placed on the register, and the scrutiny of his character was still pending, you thrust this person into the public service. Then you dragged in another from the market-place, a man who was poor and who belonged to a class which in every other city is counted as the very dregs, but who among you, since of your excessive wisdom you exchange rubbish for gold, enjoys a moderate fortune; and this man you elected as your colleague. Many such offences did you commit with regard to the nominations, and then when I did not consent to everything, not only was I deprived of the thanks due for all the good I had done, but also I have incurred your dislike on account of all that I in justice refrained from."
He sounds self-righteous and, preachy is probably a good word. Maybe, just maybe, that's why he wasn't liked by Antioch, and not because of his beard or his generosity.
Julian's answer was this satire on himself which he addresses directly to the people of Antioch. But he could not resist scolding them, and the satire on his own habits is not consistently maintained.
"I therefore gave you the opportunity to elect and to have in your Senate the richest men among those who administer my own revenues and have charge of coining the currency. You however did not elect the capable men among these, but you seized the opportunity to act like a city by no means well-ordered, though quite in keeping with your character. Would you like me to remind you of a single instance? You nominated a Senator, and then before his name had been placed on the register, and the scrutiny of his character was still pending, you thrust this person into the public service. Then you dragged in another from the market-place, a man who was poor and who belonged to a class which in every other city is counted as the very dregs, but who among you, since of your excessive wisdom you exchange rubbish for gold, enjoys a moderate fortune; and this man you elected as your colleague. Many such offences did you commit with regard to the nominations, and then when I did not consent to everything, not only was I deprived of the thanks due for all the good I had done, but also I have incurred your dislike on account of all that I in justice refrained from."
He sounds self-righteous and, preachy is probably a good word. Maybe, just maybe, that's why he wasn't liked by Antioch, and not because of his beard or his generosity.
His appointment of Alexander of Heliopolis as governor of Antioch was another big blunder, since the man was widespread despised, and the act was seen as an insult.
All in all Julian did not have a good relation with the city, and the beard was the least of their problems
All in all Julian did not have a good relation with the city, and the beard was the least of their problems
IMHO, the Roman Empire would have done better economically and militarily, but would have been dominated by Christians by the time Julian's heir died at the latest.
Keep in mind the success he enjoyed in Gaul, both military and administrative.
Overall during his reign he sought to make the imperial bureaucracy more efficient (drawing heavily from the intellectual and professional classes as opposed to yes-men) and had success in fighting corruption. He also began to devolve power in some cases back to the cities, which was a great idea and would have helped, together with his fight against corruption, the economy immensely.
Getting trade back, a more efficient state apparatus and stability were something the Roman Empire desperately required.
Regarding religion, there was no way paganism could come back. However, what might happen would be a much more fragmented Christianity, and, with luck, a tradition of the state ensuring that neither religious branch get total control over the government (although that could, under circumstances, backfire badly...)
All of this assumes he is successful in weakening Persia sufficiently and with relatively low losses (meaning the traditional legion system still sticks around for a generation or two) and is lucky enough not to get assassinated or get corrupted/blinded by power.
How exactly ? According to Libanius, this is what happened:
when all of a sudden there arose a cry in the Hippodrome of the starving population [of Antioch], on the ground that the earth had been ill-treated by the weather, and the city by the land-owners not bringing into market the stores of the annual harvest, but forcing up the prices of corn. He called together husbandmen, artizans, retailers----in fine, all people of that sort----and compelled them by law to keep order; then he was himself the first to follow the regulation and bring his own wheat into the market
While bad weather was involved, the large landholders were also to blame. If today following a drought the major food producers decided to withhold their produce from the market, wouldn't you be in favor of the government stepping in and trying to break up the cartel ? Even if the landlords did suffer losses, it was well within their means to sustain them as opposed to the urban middle and lower classes.
Libanius inverted cause and effect, because when you are at court you do not say "that emperor was a dumbass", not even of an emperor dead in disgrace: emperors don't like the idea that subjects voice those sort of things regardings their betters.
Julian was in Anthioch with the court and a part of the army, i.e. "a lot of people".
More people willing to eat => food price rises.
There was a draught? probably.
Some merchant tried to exploit the situation to rise cash? probably.
But what you happen if a "bright" Emperor decrees that foodstuff must have a maximum price which is too low?
It happens that the foodstuff disappears from the legal market, because there they cannot sell it with a profit margin.
And it reappears in the black market at even an higher price.
Net result: economy problems and people are hungry (and thus, angry).
And this because the emperor was unable to plan ahead the foodstuff need of his reinue (or had advisors unable to do so, that is as bad as that, for an emperor), and because instead of making the only sensible decision (importing foodstuff from other areas) decided to solve it with a stroke of pen.
which is not what I call "being good at administration"
Explain why you think this is so when a majority of the Empire was still pagan.
I think of what happened this way. Firstly he hoped that the local curia would solve the problem themselves. Shortly after he arrived, he spoke with the city's curia, since they had done nothing up to that point, and tried to persuade them to take action against the food crisis (Remember, Julian was all about greater local autonomy and keeping the central government focused on important things). The curia however kept doing its thing, i.e. nothing, as it was not in their interest to solve the crisis, since they had the most to gain from it. They could have easily imported grain from Egypt themselves. He then fixed the price, but he also brought in his own wheat (probably from surplus army supplies), and, crucially, imported more from Egypt.
Also note that during all this time Libanius goes to great lengths to describe how Julian refrained from acting severely.
Ammianus Marcellinus constantly compares Constatius II to Julian to the former's constant disadvantage, Procopius is quite famous with his Secret History, so it did happen that writers from that period criticize emperors.
Because the Church was far better organized than the various pagan cults (organized priesthood, charities for the poor etc.) and was already very popular in most of the places that really matter in deciding which way the Empire went, which were the cities.
Julian did try to reverse this by increasing religious freedom in the form of allowing various bishops to return and stop persecuting various christian branches, and by decreasing it in other areas, such as not allowing christian schools to use classical texts, and also through various administrative means (less funding for the church, more funding for temples, administrative division of Gaza to ensure a pagan majority, the attempt to get a pagan organized priesthood and charities). However, given the limited effects such measures had during his reign and how entrenched Christianity already was among the urban classes, I doubt they would have succeeded.
Constantinople
Banned
A pretty contentious question
Ehhh, it might have become much more Greek. The man hated Latin and Latins. He thought of anyone but a Greek speaker as barbarian wildman.
And he wasn't long for the world. He was making too many enemies, and had a weird, unstable personality which doesn't make for a good legacy as a Roman emperor. I mean there are hints that after Persia he was going to really crack down on Christians. It simply wasn't going to work.
Brilliant, smart guy. I feel bad for him on many levels, such tragic guy. However, looking at how he really fucked up his Persian invasion (I mean he didnt have decent maps, didnt send out scouts and didn't bring siege equipment...), he had some serious strategic shortcomings.....
I mean his attempted "pagan" revivals in Antioch were considered a total joke by everyone. Christians hated it and "pagans" were embarrassed by his anarchistic sacrifices and outdated beliefs...
What are those hints? I think "Decline and Fall" says he might have done something...rash...if he'd survived the Persian campaign, but I don't remember the details.