David Greenwood develops an original interpretation of the emperor Julian's policy with recapitulation as its key word. Rather than merely wishing a restoration of paganism, Julian had specific aims in mind. He intended ‘to undo Constantine's Christianisation using the Christian rhetoric of a divinely chosen representative who would revisit and overwrite the wrongs of the past, restoring the divine intentions for the Roman Empire’ (18). Appropriating Constantine's image as a Christ-like figure sent to re-order the empire, Julian intended to erase the Constantinian inheritance and the new religious landscape that Constantine had bequeathed. This movement of fulfilment through appropriation of things past is described as recapitulation, a concept used in Christian theology for the idea expressed in Ephesians 1.10 that it is God's purpose ‘to unite all things in Christ’. Julian thus brings history to its completion by appropriating the role Constantine had assumed. The theological concept of recapitulation brings us to what is G.'s central interpretative strategy of Julian's oeuvre: he is depicted, even in the depths of his Neoplatonic writings, as appropriating Christian models and ideals for his own pagan purposes.

This interpretation is pursued through a series of chronologically ordered chapters that focus on particular texts and episodes. The central chapters on Orations 7 and 4 argue that Julian defended the thesis that ‘there is one God and Julian is his son’ (43) — his own appropriation of Constantine's divine-like status. Heracles and Asclepius appear in these orations as representations of, and models for, Julian himself. G. argues for the fundamental coherence of Julian's project throughout his life, rejecting the idea that Julian progressively hardened his stance towards Christianity. Largely focused on Julian's own writings, with occasional glances to other evidence, the book is a spirited defence of the consistency of Julian's policy and its coherence with his writings.

In short, G. aims at uncovering the ideology of Julian's reign. This unity of vision is surely an attractive feature of the present book. I am not sure, however, that I follow G. all the way. His understanding of Julian relies relies on a very strong interpretation of Constantinian ideology, namely that Constantine being Christ-like was central to it. We may have a few texts that have been interpreted as going in that direction (especially Eusebius, in an interpretation that is increasingly contested). Yet that is not enough to claim that such ideas were the core of Constantinian ideology. There is, further, not enough evidence to claim that it would be the common interpretation of Constantine in the time of Julian. If recapitulation of Constantine is Julian's ideology, then it is an idiosyncratic interpretation of Constantine. More generally, G. has a tendency to interpret sources as reflecting reality. Yet especially (but not only) when it comes to ideology, authors are producers, and not just reproducers, of imperial representations. In addition, some passages adduced by G. to support his thesis are too conventional to bear much weight. For example, I do not think that we can really argue that, when Libanius uses the motif of Heracles at the cross-roads for Julian, this must reflect Julianic ideology (70). In his effort to trace Julianic ideology, G. somewhat loses sight of this variety of representations and tends to press the evidence into service of his general thesis. For example, Libanius comparing Julian's achievement in Against the Galilaeans to that of the philosopher Porphyry is hardly evidence for Julian having modelled his work after Porphyry's (58). The alleged link between Julian's reign and pagan oracles (108) is predominantly found in later Christian sources and I would be prudent in projecting this back on Julian's reign. Finally, important work, especially by German scholars, is missing: I am thinking especially of papers by Hans-Ulrich Wiemer about Julian's religious policy, which might have nuanced the idea that the ‘received wisdom about [Julian founding a] pagan church is correct’ (102). Even though, then, G. sometimes overplays his hand, his Julian has the attractive feature of being coherent in thought and deed.