by
Damien F. Mackey
“Augustus had established the pattern for what a Roman emperor
looks like. Hadrian breaks the mould. But this is to deny that earlier emperors
had been represented
bearded at least on their coinage.
Most extensive in this
were Nero and Domitian”.
C. Vout
Introduction
Naturally,
since I had, in my article:
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes,
as also the census emperor Augustus
presented
a sequence of emperors totally different from the conventional one given here
by C. Vout, I must inevitably, therefore, disagree with the conclusions.
If,
as suggested in my article, Augustus and Hadrian were one and the same emperor,
the Census “Caesar Augustus” of Luke 2:1: “In those days Caesar
Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman
world” then – whether or not Augustus ‘established patterns’ ( and I am sure
that he did) – his many beardless portraits are offset by his prominent
beardedness as Hadrian.
While
C. Vout will eventually in the (2002) article:
A REVISION OF HADRIAN'S
PORTRAITURE
acknowledge
that “Nero and Domitian” (conventionally before Hadrian) sported beards,
strangely the author will insist that it was “Hadrian [who] breaks the [Augustan] mould”.
In
my opinion, he didn’t – nor could he have if he were, in fact, Augustus.
The
philhellenic Grecophile, Hadrianos Sebastos
Olumpios (Sebastos is Greek for “Augustus”) – and we will
meet “philhellenism” quite regularly in connection with Hadrian when we peruse
C. Vout’s article – the “Greekling” (Graeculus) as, supposedly, he was
known, was in fact a Seleucid Greek.
He
was the tyrant king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ so-called IV.
Here,
now is C. Vout’s article with my comments added.
A REVISION OF HADRIAN'S PORTRAITURE By C. VOUT
“In
the second century, Roman men did not wear beards; in second-century Greece,
they did. Beards were worn by the Greek poets, philosophers, and statesmen of
the past. Hadrian wore a beard in life and in his portraits because he wanted
to be 'the Greeklin’.”
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
Hadrian exhibited Greek style because he was, in fact, a Greek.
C. Vout
continues:
We all know what a Roman emperor looks like or rather
we are familiar with imperial imagery. So were the ancients, until Hadrian
rewrote the formula. The orthodoxy is that as the first bearded emperor and
avid supporter of Greek culture, Hadrian changed the public face of Roman rule.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
“… Hadrian rewrote the formula”? But what about the Grecophilic Nero, who is
supposed to have reigned before Hadrian?
Most
intriguingly, Nero is highly comparable with Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, who
definitely was not a Roman. On this see my article:
Nero
like an Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’
(10) Nero like an
Antiochus 'Epiphanes'
C. Vout
continues:
Where does this conception come from? In part, it
comes from the ancient literature. Although fairly scanty and most of it
posthumous (with the third or fourth-century Augustan History and third-century
Cassius Dio providing the fullest picture), this literature bears witness to a
man who hunts, writes poetry, takes a young Greek lover, Antinous, and is
initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries; in other words, in private, who lives
like a Greek. It also claims that he was curious about other cultures, especially
Egyptian (into which Antinous plugs perhaps as well as into classical), and
that his favourite author was the Roman epic poet, Ennius.
….
But it is the Greek nature of the tradition that has
captured the imagination. Or it is the novelty that a good emperor could be
"so imbued in Greek studies that some called him ‘Graeculus’ ….
Sources of the same period see Nero and Domitian's
Hellenic leanings as indicative of their tyranny. Hadrian somehow escapes
similar venom to embody the success (even acme) of the Roman Empire. He is not
a dilettante but an intellectual who harnesses the united power of Rome and
Greece.
….
This turnaround in the meaning of
philhellenism should not surprise us. In some ways, trying to trace the point
at which Roman attitudes towards the Greeks and, rather differently, Greek
culture, began to shift is subsidiary to this discussion. Unlike Nero and
Domitian, Hadrian died popular, or at least it was in the interests of his
successors to support him. ….
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
Hadrian, if he were Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as I am claiming, died a most atrocious
death. On this, see e.g. my article:
Horrible
end of the emperor who abominated Jerusalem
(10) Horrible end
of the emperor who abominated Jerusalem
C. Vout
continues:
Roman authors show time and time again how a good
emperor can be praised for the same qualities for which a bad emperor is
damned. This said, however, Hadrian's philhellenism is further sanctioned by
virtue of the fact that he turns it to public advantage. He devotes
considerable resources into improving Greek centres such as Athens, Eleusis and
Pergamum and encourages the Pan hellenion or league of 'Greek' cities so as to
give them greater occasion to take responsibility for themselves.
….
C. P. Jones has recently challenged the standard line
that Hadrian created the league in 131-l32 C.E., preferring instead to see its
foundation as a Greek initiative …. There is evidence to argue that Hadrian's
predecessors, Domitian and Trajan, invested as much (if not more) time and
money into Eleusis, Cyrene and Pergamum, and that Athens is in all sorts of
ways a special case. ….
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
Trajan, in my opinion, may not have been a ‘predecessor’. On this, see my
article:
Hadrianus
Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian
(10) Hadrianus
Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian
He looks
like Hadrian’s twin brother.
C. Vout
continues:
…. But none of these objections (if that is what they
are) slow the increasing trend to gloss the majority of Hadrian's actions and
motivations as philhellenism (positive). Whereas in the past, scholars tended
to be more cautious on this issue (Eugenie Strong, for example, saying that
there was "little indication that Hadrian ever wished to be classed with
the Greeks or to be looked upon as leader of any Hellenic revival") …
today almost every initiative is assigned to this heading!
….
Philhellenism equates to a political stance, a
successful PanheIlenic programme (so much so that Griffin is now reticent about
awarding Nero the adjective 'philhellenic')."
Hadrian is credited with changing Roman imperium
beyond recognition, making its fulcrum Greek culture.
The
strength of this assertion arouses suspicion. How different is Hadrian from the
emperors before him (for example, Augustus is also supposed to have been
initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries)? …. Is everything he does
'philhellenism'?
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
Augustus, as Hadrian, does whatever Hadrian does: the Eleusinian Mysteries for
instance.
C. Vout
continues:
Regardless of what we want to call it, might his
interest in Greek cities have not been 'simple' exigency or diplomacy? Even a
fleeting glance at the period in which Hadrian was ruling [which is what?: Mackey] would suggest that the answer to this last question
is confirmatory. The second century is renowned for being a time when Greek
culture came together with (even assumed the lead over) Roman culture to become
the most valued currency of elite interaction. Its language and heritage had a
symbolic capital that outstripped the fact that relatively few of Rome's
politicians were Greek. …. Seen from this angle, it matters less what Hadrian's
motivations were or how different he was from Nero. The implication is that it
is a different world and that Hadrian is only doing what a second-century
emperor had to do. One wonders what comes first, the 'Second Sophistic', or the
sources' emphasis on Hadrian's Hellenism. Or to put it another way, in order to
be 'the man of the moment', did he have to be good at atticising Greek?
….
It is less easy to minimise the shock of Hadrian's
physical appearance as made concrete in his coinage and statuary. Here, more
than anywhere, scholars have noted a radical departure from the image of
emperor as established by Augustus.
The fact that all of Hadrian's portraits (or at least
all of those which have been identified as Hadrian) show him with a full beard
and moustache, make his iconography unprecedented [sic] and the answer to what
does a Roman [sic] emperor look like read differently. Recently, Cecile Evers
has described it as "rompant diametralement avec les images de ses
predecesseurs", whilst the starting and end point of Andrea Carandini's
study was "una cesura profundo" between Trajan and Hadrian's reigns.
….
Are there other possible sources that Hadrian is
mining? Or, as Smith prefers for his example, was his beard 'simply' a
"fashion statement" rather than a deliberate quotation from the past?
…. Susan Walker has recently refined her answer to this question to describe
Hadrian's beard as "worn in the style of Pericles". …. Pericles'
short curly beard and moustache put her on safer ground than those who have
favoured philosophers. It is an identity that would complement Hadrian's
interest in Athens, especially his enthusiasm to build. But the more one
pursues the implications of this hypothesis, the more one is made to doubt it.
If one reads Plutarch so as to get a sense of Pericles' reputation under
Hadrian, one encounters an icon whose head is too long (hence the helmet) and
whose overall appearance is reminiscent of the tyrant Pisistratus (although
this is hardly surprising as he too was a prolific builder, inaugurator of the
Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens which Hadrian was to finish) …. These are
hardly auspicious parallels.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
There may be very strong reasons why Hadrian has come down to us as a ‘second
Pericles’, and like Peisistratus (for one, they all look alike):
Pericles
thought to have preceded, by centuries, Hadrian, a ‘second Pericles’
(10) Pericles
thought to have preceded, by centuries, Hadrian, a ‘second Pericles’
Golden
Age of Athens actually belongs to the Seleucid tyrants
(10) Golden Age of
Athens actually belongs to the Seleucid tyrants
