Understanding Julian

Understanding Julian: Religion, Power, and the Limits of Restoration

I do not think Julian’s goal of minimizing Christianity and restoring paganism as the favored religion of the Roman Empire was completely impossible, especially if he had lived longer. At the same time, I do not think he could have easily reversed everything Christianity had already gained. By the time Julian became emperor, Christianity had received decades of imperial support and Christian leaders had gained privileges within Roman society. Freeman argues that Julian probably hoped to “weaken and eventually eliminate Christianity throughout the Roman lands” (Freeman, 85). Julian could remove privileges, reopen temples, promote pagan worship, and use imperial power to favor paganism, but changing laws was not the same thing as changing what people believed.

I find Julian especially interesting because I can understand part of how he got there even though I disagree with most of what he eventually did. He was raised Christian and later began questioning what he had been taught before becoming deeply interested in pagan philosophy and religion. I relate to that process more than I expected to. I was raised around Christianity, but studying Hellenism and other religious traditions has made me question ideas that once felt automatic simply because they were familiar to me. I am not a Hellenist, but I understand how learning about another belief system can make someone reconsider what they were taught growing up. That makes Julian’s religious journey understandable to me without making his later treatment of Christians acceptable.

I also understand some of Julian’s objections to privileges Christian leaders had gained. For example, I can understand why he did not think religious leaders should receive free government transportation simply because they were religious leaders. However, some of his policies went much further. His education policy effectively forced Christian teachers out by requiring teachers to believe in the pagan material they taught. Freeman explains that Julian believed Christians could not honestly teach pagan philosophers if they believed those teachings were false (Freeman, 93–94). For me, understanding his reasoning and agreeing with his actions are two different things.

Julian also understood that paganism could not survive on imperial preference alone. In his Letter to a Priest, he criticizes pagan priests for neglecting the poor while Christians gained influence through charity (Julian, Letter to a Priest 305). Freeman explains that Christianity had developed organized congregations, clergy, charity, and communication between communities. Julian tried to create a more organized pagan religious system whose priests would practice charity, care for the sick, and act as moral examples (Freeman, 95–96). I think this shows both how serious he was and how difficult the goal actually was. Christianity already had institutions Julian was now trying to recreate.

His project also depended heavily on him personally. Julian ruled as sole emperor for less than two years before dying during the Persian campaign in 363. His successor, Jovian, was Christian. Freeman writes that Julian died along with his “dream of restoring the glory of the ancient gods of Rome” (Freeman, 127). I think Julian could have strengthened paganism if he had lived longer, but for that change to last, he would have needed future emperors who wanted the same thing.

Gibbon also argues that Julian was trying to reform paganism partly by borrowing the organization and discipline Christianity had developed (Gibbon, Decline and Fall 23.2). To me, that makes his goal seem possible to a certain extent, but permanently reversing Christianization still seems extremely difficult.

If paganism had remained the favored religion of the Roman Empire, I think world history could have looked dramatically different. Christianity later shaped European politics, education, art, morality, and family traditions. I do not think an alternate pagan world would automatically have been better or worse. It simply would have been different.

That question is especially personal for me because Christianity is deeply connected to my own family history. Much of my ancestry comes from areas later shaped by the Holy Roman Empire. My father’s side has remained strongly Catholic, while my mother’s side has historically included pastors from multiple Christian denominations. If Christianity had not become dominant, those family traditions might have developed very differently.

Whether that alternate history would have been better or worse also depends heavily on perspective. A pagan whose temple had been closed might have seen Julian as restoring something that had been taken away. A Christian losing employment, privileges, or influence could experience the same policies as discrimination or persecution. The same religious change could look completely different depending on who someone was and what they believed.

I think Julian could have slowed Christianity’s dominance and strengthened paganism if he had lived longer, but I do not think permanently reversing Christianization would have been easy. Christianity was already established, Julian was trying to reorganize paganism to compete with it, and his program depended heavily on one emperor. Studying him has also made me realize that I can understand how someone arrived at their beliefs without agreeing with what they eventually chose to do with power.