Julian the Apostate’s The Caesars (Symposium) – An Ancient Masterpiece

Julian the Apostate’s The Caesars, also known as The Symposium or Kronia, is one of the most delightful, sharp-witted, and intellectually satisfying works to survive from Late Antiquity. Written around 362 CE during his brief reign, this satirical dialogue is a brilliant piece of philosophical entertainment that feels astonishingly modern. Modelled on Plato’s Symposium, Julian stages a heavenly banquet hosted by the gods during the festival of Saturn (Kronia). The gods invite the souls of Rome’s greatest emperors — along with Alexander the Great — to compete for the title of the best ruler. What follows is a hilarious, biting, and deeply revealing contest judged by the gods themselves.

The work is funny, eloquent, informative, and exceptionally witty. Julian’s prose sparkles with irony and dry humour. Silenus (Dionysus’s companion) acts as a comic sidekick, delivering savage one-liners and mocking the emperors as they enter. The satire is never crude — it is refined, philosophical, and devastatingly effective. At the same time, it is profoundly informative, offering a crash course in Roman imperial history through the lens of a highly educated insider. Julian reveals his vast knowledge of philosophy, military history, and governance while using the format to promote his own vision of ideal rule: a philosopher-king devoted to the traditional Hellenic gods.

Julian’s Family Connection to Constantine the Great and the Bloody Background

Julian the Apostate (Flavius Claudius Julianus) was the nephew of Constantine the Great. His father, Julius Constantius, was Constantine’s younger half-brother (sharing the same father, Constantius Chlorus). This made Julian a direct member of the Constantinian dynasty. Born around 331–332 CE in Constantinople, Julian was raised as a Christian but later rejected the faith. 
The defining trauma of his life occurred in 337 CE, shortly after Constantine’s death. Constantine’s three sons — Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans — orchestrated a ruthless purge of potential rivals within the extended imperial family. Soldiers murdered most of the male descendants from Constantine’s father’s second marriage, including Julian’s father Julius Constantius and several uncles and cousins. Julian, then only about five or six years old, and his older half-brother Gallus were spared — likely because of their youth.

This massacre left a deep, lasting hatred in Julian toward the Christian branch of his family, particularly Constantius II (who later ruled as sole emperor and kept Julian under surveillance for years). This family bloodshed profoundly shaped Julian’s worldview and fueled his fierce rejection of Christianity, which he associated with the faith of those who slaughtered his relatives.

Julian’s Biases and Massive SpoilersJulian makes no attempt at objectivity — this is propaganda wrapped in satire, and it is all the more enjoyable for it.

• Marcus Aurelius is clearly Julian’s favourite and ultimate winner of the contest. He is portrayed as the ideal emperor: wise, temperate, philosophically profound, just, and devoted to the gods. Julian sees him as the perfect blend of philosophical depth and practical virtue. Marcus represents everything Julian aspired to be — a true philosopher-king.
• Constantine the Great, by contrast, is Julian’s least favourite and is absolutely roasted. He is depicted as a power-hungry, luxury-loving, effeminate hedonist surrounded by luxury and vice. Julian portrays him as a man who abandoned the traditional gods for Christianity out of political ambition and personal weakness. Constantine is shown as soft, greedy, and responsible for introducing corruption and decline into the empire. The attack is merciless and deeply personal — Constantine was, after all, the emperor who Christianized Rome and whose dynasty nearly wiped out Julian’s family.

Other emperors receive varied treatment:

• Julius Caesar — Enters with burning ambition and military glory. Admired for his genius, courage, and conquests, but heavily criticized for his lust for personal power and desire to become a king. Strong contender but ultimately falls short of true philosophical virtue.
• Augustus (Octavian) — Portrayed as changeable and calculating, like a chameleon. Respected for his political skill, success in ending civil wars, and establishing stable rule. Gently mocked for vanity and hypocrisy, but overall viewed positively as a capable statesman.
• Tiberius — Generally portrayed negatively — gloomy, suspicious, and cruel. Receives little praise and is seen as a poor ruler.
• Caligula — Depicted as a monstrous, insane tyrant. The gods turn away in disgust; Justice immediately hands him over to the avengers and he is hurled into Tartarus (hell). No defense or mercy.
• Claudius — Mocked as weak, foolish, and dominated by his wives and freedmen. Silenus jokes about him needing his freedmen and Messalina to even function. Treated as a pathetic figure.
• Nero — Portrayed as a flamboyant, artistic tyrant and moral degenerate. Strongly condemned for his vices and persecution of good men.
• Galba, Otho, Vitellius — The chaotic Year of the Four Emperors (68–69 CE). Grouped together and dismissed as a “swarm of monarchs” by Silenus. Viewed as short-lived, unworthy failures with little individual praise.
• Vespasian — Treated with some respect as practical and frugal, but mocked for his stinginess (“niggard”). Sent to “extinguish the flames” as a utilitarian figure.
• Titus — Mildly positive but not a top contender. Associated with pleasure and debauchery in some comments.
• Domitian — Portrayed negatively as a cruel tyrant. Compared to the monster Phalaris and ordered chained in the stocks.
• Trajan — One of the strongest positive portrayals. Praised as a virtuous, manly, disciplined warrior-emperor and excellent administrator. A serious contender for the top prize.
• Marcus Aurelius — Julian’s clear favorite and the ultimate winner. Portrayed as the ideal philosopher-king: wise, temperate, just, philosophically profound, morally pure, and devoted to the gods. Embodies perfect virtue and self-control.
• Constantine the Great — Julian’s most hated target. Savagely mocked as a luxury-loving, effeminate, power-hungry hedonist obsessed with pleasure and gold. Ridiculed for abandoning the traditional gods for Christianity out of ambition and weakness. Portrayed as corrupt and responsible for the empire’s decline. Comes last or near last.
Alexander the Great also participates in the contest (though not a Roman emperor) and is a major rival to the Caesars. He is admired for military brilliance but criticized for recklessness and hubris.

Julian’s biases are glaring: he glorifies pagan virtue, Stoic philosophy, and military discipline while pouring scorn on Christianity and what he saw as moral decay. Yet this very partisanship gives the work its fire and personality.Performances and the Urgent Need for MoreThe Caesars has occasionally been brought to life. A full-cast dramatic reading translated and directed by Jeremy Swist is available on YouTube and demonstrates how well the dialogue works when performed. There have also been academic readings and excerpts staged in classical symposia or philosophy events.
However, this brilliant piece deserves far more attention. It cries out for a full theatrical production — imagine it staged as a lively, witty play with strong direction and sharp comedic timing. Even better, it would make an outstanding film or limited television series: visually rich, intellectually deep, and packed with dark humour. The heavenly banquet setting offers endless creative possibilities for costume, set design, and godly cameos. In an era hungry for intelligent historical content, a high-quality adaptation of The Caesars could introduce Julian’s sharp mind to a much wider audience. It is long overdue for a proper cinematic or stage revival.

A Modern Symposium: What If the Gods Judged America’s Presidents?

It would be fascinating if a modern writer produced a contemporary version of Julian’s The Caesars — a satirical symposium where the gods of Olympus (or perhaps a divine council) host a heavenly banquet to judge and rank America’s presidents, England’s monarchs, or Britain’s prime ministers. Imagine the sharp wit and biting commentary as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Donald Trump defend their legacies before the gods, while figures like King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I, and Queen Victoria argue over their reigns. The humor would be endless: Silenus-style mockery of failed presidencies, disastrous wars, scandals, and hypocrisies, with the gods delivering ruthless verdicts. Such a work could be both highly entertaining and deeply insightful, exposing the vanity, ambition, and occasional greatness of political leaders across centuries. Just as Julian used his Symposium to settle scores and promote his philosophy, a modern version could offer a brilliant critique of democracy, power, and human nature — all while delivering the same blend of laughter, eloquence, and uncomfortable truths that makes Julian’s original so timeless.

Final ThoughtsThe Caesars is not just a historical curiosity — it is a minor masterpiece. Witty, profound, and unapologetically opinionated, it gives us a rare window into the mind of one of Rome’s most fascinating emperors. Julian was a brilliant writer as well as a philosopher-ruler, and this work showcases his talents at their peak. Whether you love or hate his pagan revivalist agenda, you cannot deny the sheer enjoyment and insight this short text delivers.
If you care about classical literature, Roman history, or sharp political satire, read The Caesars. Then demand that it be performed more often — on stage and on screen. It is too good to remain obscure.