by
Damien F. Mackey
“In the opening chapter, the author explains how Domitian’s
building programs
in
the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect Domitian’s
desire
not
only to emulate Augustus but also to surpass him”.
Philip Mathew
Introduction
Was history
merely rhyming, in the case of the emperor Domitian’s supposed emulation
of (the presumably earlier) Augustus, or was it, rather, repeating?
Caesar
Augustus (cf. Luke 2:1) must have been a highly significant figure in
ancient history to have attracted so many who are considered to have been his emulators
- or those characters who have been dubbed ‘a New Augustus’.
But he,
despite his importance, is quite poorly understood – at least according to my
reconstructions of him. For one, Caesar Augustus was a Seleucid Greek, not a
Roman. He was that tyrannical tormentor of the Maccabees, king Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’, rather than that moderate and respectable Roman ruler of text book
representation. He was one aspiring to be divine (‘Epiphanes’ means God
Manifest), but considered by his enemies, instead, to have been a Mad Man
(‘Epimanes’).
The
Maccabeans labelled him a “butcher”, an “unholy wretch”, and the “most defiled
of all men” (cf. 2 Maccabees 7:29, 34).
And he was
the Grecophile (because he was a Greek) homosexual, Hadrian:
A
Jewish tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian
(4) A Jewish
tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian
As Hadrian, he was also the prophet Ezekiel’s ill-fated King of Tyre:
Putting
a face to Ezekiel’s Fallen King of Tyre
(6) Putting a face
to Ezekiel's Fallen King of Tyre
Hadrian, in fact, called Tyre a Metropolis,
“Great City”, Mother of other cities.
Now, the
emperor Hadrian is one of those many who are regarded as having been an
emulator of Augustus, and even:
[Hadrian]
a reincarnation of Augustus
(3) Hadrian a
reincarnation of Augustus
Assuredly, Hadrian was an Augustus redivivus!
But that is not all!
With the insane, God-aspiring Nero Caesar Augustus likened
to ‘both’ identities of Augustus (above):
Nero
Caesar can be likened to king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, to the emperor Hadrian
(6) Nero Caesar
can be likened to king Antiochus 'Epiphanes', to the emperor Hadrian
and culminating in Augustus himself:
Nero
Caesar Augustus was ‘a New Augustus’
(6) Nero Caesar
Augustus was 'a New Augustus'
then I cannot but conclude that Nero was yet another alter
ego of Augustus – not the highly sanitised version of the latter, as he is
so often presented, but the tyrannical madman version as can be found in
Antiochus ‘Mad Man’, and Hadrian in his excesses.
Let us pause here for a moment to get our heads around this
radical new version of Greco-Roman imperial history.
Conclusion 1.
All of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, Augustus, and Hadrian, need to
be wrapped up into the one parcel, as just the one Census emperor at the time
of the Nativity of Jesus Christ:
Time
to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the
census emperor Augustus
And, to be
wrapped up with these three names (amongst whom also we find Ezekiel’s King of
Tyre), is the deranged and indulgent Nero.
Augustus
Caesar of Luke 2:1 = Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ = Nero = Hadrian.
More names to be added
Before we
consider Domitian, we need also to add, radiating out from our base above, the
Census emperor Diocletian, who serves to reinforce the Luke 2 narrative.
Prior to my
connecting of Diocletian with any census, though, I had found that some
scholars were comparing him with Augustus, but especially with the latter’s alter ego (my view), Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. I wrote of this in my article:
Diocletian repeating Augustus?
(6) Diocletian repeating Augustus?
….
Christian History for Everyman
The career of Gaius Aurelius Valerius
Diocletianus (formerly Diocles) (c. 300 AD, conventional dating),
follows a pattern remarkably similar to that of the Seleucid tyrant king,
Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’.
….
This pattern can partly be perceived from the
following comparison of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Diocletian, as provided at:
https://housetohouse.com/the-indestructible-word-2/
…. When Antiochus Epiphanes became ruler in Syria
in 175 b.c. [sic] he destroyed the Jewish temple, sold the people of Jerusalem
into slavery, and sought to do away with their sacred writings, forcing Greek
culture upon the Jews. This was all done in an effort to substitute Zeus
worship for the worship of God. Frank E. Hirsch in, “Abomination of
Desolation,” wrote, “The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those
relating to the sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of
death.
The Jewish cult was set aside; in all the cities
of Judaea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of
the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month the search was
instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the law or had observed the rite
of circumcision was condemned to death.”
….
Regarding the ‘Great Persecution’ of Diocletian –
most reminiscent of that of king Antiochus – we read at:
https://www.christian-history.org/diocletian.html
Diocletian and the Great Persecution
Damien Mackey’s comment: This was rather, so I
think, the Seleucid Greek persecution of the Jews.
….
The Great Persecution,
from A.D. 303 to 311 [sic], was a time of sudden transition and massive change
in the history of Christianity. It's the change and what caused it that we want
to focus on.
….
The Push: Diocletian Persecutes the Church
Though it's popular to believe that Christians
were always being persecuted in the Roman empire, it's not true.
Empire-wide persecutions were rare, and the Great
Persecution under Diocletian was the only one of any great length, lasting
eight years.
The "Great" Persecution?
…. It was intense. Diocletian's goal was to wipe
out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially
loved to get hold of church leaders.
He was trying to turn them back to paganism, to
the old Roman religion with the emperor as a God. Therefore, anyone he caught
and tried could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the
emperor. They could also gain great favor by turning over copies of the
Scriptures to be burned.
In addition, Diocletian destroyed their church
buildings. This was something that couldn't be done earlier, as Christians
rarely had devoted meeting places in the 2nd century. It was too easy to see
them destroyed or taken over.
While empire-wide persecutions were rare, local
persecutions at the whim of a governer or prelate were not.
It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians
(at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were
tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death.
….
Professor Gunnar Heinsohn, for his part, considered Diocletian to have
ruled at the very time of Augustus, as noted in the above article:
“This
transformation from a more central to a more decentralized administration did
not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but
during the time that Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian
did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome, but to protect the
capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms. He was directly
responsible for their implementation”.
Gunnar
Heinsohn
By now I was thinking that, if Diocletian - yet another presumed
emulator of Augustus - was an actual contemporary, or even more, of Augustus,
then there ought to be evidence of a universal Census during Diocletian’s
reign.
And so I commenced my article:
Census of emperor Diocletian
(6) Census of emperor Diocletian
with this comment:
If Diocletian, a mirror-image of the emperor
Augustus, was, in fact, said Augustus - whom I had already identified with the
Seleucid tyrant, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’, and with the emperor, Hadrian - then
it would be reasonable to expect a significant census of the kingdom to have
been issued by Diocletian (cf. Luke 2:1).
And my readers were not to
be disappointed.
In part, I wrote:
…. So, as that thought about emperor Diocletian
likely issuing a census came to me today (30th June, 2026), I
checked the Internet, and immediately found this truncated piece (my emphasis):
“The systematic assessment and registration of
people and property by the Roman state. *Diocletian reformed the institution to
provide the basis for his new tax regime, with a new Empire-wide census probably
completed by 296. ...”.
“… a new Empire-wide census …”.
Cf. Luke 2:1: “… a census should be
taken of the whole empire”.
Zvi Uri Ma‘oz tells of more than one census from the emperor
Diocletian, and in reference to the governor of Syria (cf. Luke
2:2):
….
Apart from
Diocletian, the other names that I have added to the ever-growing list of alter
egos for Augustus are Caligula and Trajan, who apparently
stands in need of some historical and architectural complementation:
Where
has Trajan’s Forum gone?
(6) Where has
Trajan’s Forum gone?
Trajan I have duly identified
with his presumed successor, Hadrian:
Hadrianus
Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian
(6) Hadrianus
Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian
Caligula
Caligula
was, like Antiochus, like Nero, quite insane, extremely self-indulgent, and
desirous of being worshipped. He best compares with Augustus, as does Diocletian,
via comparison with the alter ego of Antiochus:
Caligula
and Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’
(10) Caligula and
Antiochus 'Epiphanes'
“What, therefore, do Caligula and Antiochus Epiphanes have in common,
as their reigns pertain to the Jews? Both reigned during a time when the
Jews
were abandoning their God and breaking covenant with him on a national
scale. The one ruler officially desecrated the Temple, while the other planned to do so.
Both rulers were involved in the emperor
cult that required
worship from those they ruled”.
Edward L. Bromfield
See also my article:
Caligula
and Nero
“Despite the debate over the precise details of their reigns,
there’s no denying
that Caligula and Nero
left an indelible mark on Roman history and
popular imagination. Their
names have become synonymous with
the worst excesses of
power and the corrupting influence of absolute rule”.
History Tools
One area in
which Caligula intertwines with Augustus is with his honouring of the man (official)
who was a virtual second emperor to Augustus, Marcus Agrippa.
Caligula
exalts Marcus Agrippa
(10) Caligula
exalts Marcus Agrippa
“Another
reason that Caligula produced coins depicting Agrippa
was
that it connected him to Augustus because, as mentioned above,
Agrippa
was one of Augustus’ closest friends”.
Was Agrippa, in fact, ‘one
of Caligula’s closest friends’?
‘Caligula’ (nickname)
bore the very name of Augustus: Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.
A note: By way of further
confirmation of the legitimacy of my multi-identifying Caesar Augustus - whose
well-known ‘second’, or signet man, was Marcus Agrippa - is that his alter
egos generally had prominent seconds.
I broadly discussed
this fascinating situation in my article:
Herod,
the emperor’s signet right-hand man
(10) Herod, the
emperor's signet right-hand man
For instance, the right-hand man in the case of Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’ was Philip the Phrygian (2 Maccabees 5:22): “He appointed governors
to cause trouble for the people. In Jerusalem he placed Philip, a man from
Phrygia who was more evil than Antiochus himself”.
I Maccabees 6:14-15:
“Then he summoned Philip, one of his Friends, and put him in charge of his
whole kingdom. He gave him his diadem, his robe, and his
signet ring …”.
This Philip became the King of Jerusalem, Herod ‘the Great’
Agrippa/Marcus Agrippa, who was second to Augustus.
The same situation ought to apply as well to Caligula,
exalting Marcus Agrippa.
In the case of Hadrian, the second (I am presuming) was,
again a Herod, the less well-known Herodes Atticus (a name that also connects
with Marcus Agrippa via his wife).
In the case of Diocletian, Maximian may have been that
right-hand man: “Soon after securing sole control, Diocletian named Maximian as
Caesar and, a year later, promoted him to Augustus”.
How
Emperor Diocletian prevented Ancient Rome from imploding - History Skills
And so on.
Conclusion 2.
Potentially to be added
to:
Augustus
Caesar of Luke 2:1 = Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ = Nero = Hadrian
are:
Caligula
= Trajan = Diocletian
Phew!
Having got
all that out of the way, I can now turn to consider the main purpose of this
article, how the emperor Domitian – as yet another alleged emulator of Augustus
– might actually fit into this revised scheme of things.
Emperor Domitian
The question can be asked
about Domitian: Was he a tyrant or a reformer?
And that
same sort of question is also applicable to Augustus, to Hadrian, often
considered to have been a good king - as was Diocletian - a highly competent
ruler, but, with a big But … thrown in.
In other
words, there is an ambivalence there.
And the word
“ambivalent” can occur in descriptions of Domitian as well, as we find in, for
example, Philip Mathew’s “Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy”
(2025):
Domitian’s Rome and the
Augustan Legacy - World History Encyclopedia
“… despite
Domitain’s “damnatio memoriae,” he improved Augustus’ legacy …. Throughout this
work, the different authors have ambivalent perceptions of Domitian’s approach
to the Augustan legacy and the writers of his time’s assessment of him as
emperor”.
Domitian can
be found to be grouped with the very shady figure of Caligula, with Nero, in
“damnatio memoriae”:
Caligula,
Nero, Domitian, condemnation of memory
(10) Caligula, Nero, Domitian,
condemnation of memory
Did the
Apostle John encounter Nero or Domitian?
Years ago, I,
when attempting to come to grips with Saint John’s Book of Apocalypse,
was struck
by the fact that the author, John, was variously said by the ancients to have
been exiled during the reign of Nero, on the one hand, or by Domitian, on the
other. The reign of Domitian is generally favoured as the era when the book was
written: Book of Revelation -
Wikipedia
“The Book of
Revelation is commonly dated to about 95 AD, as suggested by clues in the
visions pointing to the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96) …”.
But that is
far too late!
Apart from
it making the yet still vigorous (even to riding a horse) Apostle John an extremely
old man, the Book of Apocalypse clearly pre-dates the Fall of Jerusalem in 70
AD (standard date). On this, see e.g. my article:
Theme
of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject
(5) Theme of
Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject
I, instead,
employing a favourite trick of mine - that often, but not always, works -
thought to fuse Nero and Domitian into the one emperor, based partly on the
similarity of names of Nero, originally Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus,
and Domitian.
Be that as
it may, I do find it difficult to regard Domitian as a Flavian, following
Vespasian and Domitian’s supposed older brother, Titus, the conqueror of
Jerusalem.
I shall
return to this point towards the end of this article.
Anyway, if
my reconstruction (above) of alter egos of Augustus is correct - and I
know that it is very far reaching - Nero, at least, would have reigned
chronologically far too early to have been a persecutor of John the Evangelist.
Here I want
to give a summary of the book mentioned above, Philip Mathew’s “Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy”
(2025), in which Domitian is shown to have been (another) emulator of Augustus
– even to the point of outdoing him, “he improved Augustus’ legacy” (as can be
said as well of Nero, of Hadrian, of Diocletian).
Another
note:
Regarding the improvements on Augustus attributed to Nero, to Hadrian, to Domitian,
to Diocletian, one might need to exercise a degree of caution. For instance,
some of the most famous architecture that we think to have been ‘Neronian’ may,
in fact, have been executed later, by the Flavian dynasty:
Was the so-called
Domus Aurea of Nero actually a Flavian enterprise?
APOCALYPSE NOW? OR THEN?: Was the so-called Domus Aurea of Nero actually
a Flavian enterprise?
We read this
summation of Philip Mathew’s book, “Domitian’s Rome and the Augustan Legacy”
(2025):
The Roman Emperor Domitian has been condemned by
history. However, certain scholars argue his misdeeds do not tell the whole
truth. This book shows how Domitian emulated the legacy of Caesar Augustus
during his reign through monuments, poetry, and artistic design. With various
essays by different authors, editors Raymond Marks and Marcello Mogetta give
readers a new insight into this famous Flavian emperor and argue that Augustus'
legacy lived on centuries after his death.
The Flavian dynasty has often been portrayed in a
positive light except for its final emperor, Domitian. The legacy of Emperor Augustus, according to Marks and Mogetta, was evident during
the Flavian rule of Rome.
“Vespasian’s other son, Domitian, not only perpetuated the ‘Augustanizing’
programs of his father and brother but greatly expanded them, making the
Augustan legacy a centerpiece of his administration and imperial culture”
…. It is the purpose of this book to further show how Augustus’ legacy lived on
after his death, even
during the reign of one of Rome’s worst emperors. The target audience is both
scholars and enthusiasts alike. It succeeds in its goal by offering new
research on Domitian and Augustus’ reception in the Roman Empire.
Part One focuses on space in a topographical sense.
“Urban Narratives” examines a building and restoration program that
incorporated Augustan-like features and became an enduring part of Rome’s urban
landscape. The three authors here draw attention to the ambivalent aspect of
Domitian’s use of the Augustan legacy. In the opening chapter, the author
explains how Domitian’s building programs in the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect
Domitian’s desire not only to emulate Augustus but also to surpass him.
Part Two, ‘Gods and Models’, we explore the nature of
the fictitious relationship between Hercules and Domitian. The emperor is seen as superior to
the mythological hero, similar to Augustus in portrayal. The authors also
explore Domitian’s relationship to his patron deity, Minerva as shown on the surviving strip of the Forum
Transitorium, comparing Ovid’s depiction
of Arachne’s
punishment and Martial’s depiction of her.
Part Three, ‘From Nero to Augustus’, examines the Flavian attempt to
connect Domitian with Augustus by distinguishing him from Emperor Nero. The
authors point out that Nero’s adoption of Augustus’ legacy created a fragile
situation for Flavian poets when they compare Domitian with Augustus. This is a
comparison of ancient sources such as Calpirnius Siculus, Silius Italicus, and
Lucan.
Part Four, ‘Poetic Journeys’, deals with the theme of
space in poetry each examining the treatment of Augustan texts by a poet in the
time of Domitian. Once again, this is a comparison of sources, like Statius,
Silius Italicus, and Virgil. They
examine how various poems depict heroic achievements, comparing them to
Augustus and Domitian. They are challenging the old Augustan depictions and
showing that newer interpretations by Domitian’s reign are more up-to-date.
Associating Domitian with these various mythological figures was part of the Roman Imperial cult, maintaining the idea that the emperor upholds a
divine status.
Part Five, ‘History and Reception’, discusses major
historical features in Domitian’s reign stemming from Augustus. ….
How much
of a Flavian flavour had Domitian?
The article
from which we have just read makes Domitian seem as something of a misfit in
the Flavian dynasty:
“The
Roman Emperor Domitian has been condemned by history”.
“The
Flavian dynasty has often been portrayed in a positive light except for its
final emperor, Domitian”.
“Vespasian’s other son, Domitian, not only
perpetuated the ‘Augustanizing’ programs of his father and brother but greatly
expanded them, making the Augustan legacy a centerpiece of his administration
and imperial culture”
…”.
“In
the opening chapter, the author explains how Domitian’s building programs in
the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect
Domitian’s desire not only to emulate Augustus but also to surpass him”.
“Part
Two, ‘Gods and Models’, we explore the nature of the fictitious relationship
between Hercules and
Domitian. The emperor is seen as superior to the mythological hero, similar to
Augustus in portrayal”.
“Part
Three, ‘From Nero to
Augustus’, examines the Flavian attempt to connect Domitian with Augustus by
distinguishing him from Emperor Nero. The authors point out that Nero’s
adoption of Augustus’ legacy created a fragile situation for Flavian poets when
they compare Domitian with Augustus”.
“Part
Four, ‘Poetic Journeys’, deals with the theme of space in poetry each examining
the treatment of Augustan texts by a poet in the time of Domitian. ….
They
examine how various poems depict heroic achievements, comparing them to
Augustus and Domitian”. ….
Emperor Domitian: The Tyrant Who Shook Rome
Emperor Domitian
Written by: Kate
Zusmann
Domitian (Titus Flavius Caesar Domitianus Augustus)
was Roman Emperor from 81 to 96 AD. His reign is notable for peace and
stability but, at the same time, for fear and paranoia. He was the younger
brother of Titus, the
son of Vespasian,
and the last representative of the Flavian dynasty.
Early Life
Domitian was born in Rome on 24 October 51 AD. He was
the youngest son of Titus Flavius Vespasianus and Flavia Domitilla Major. In
comparison to Titus, Domitian did not share in the court education. ….
According to historians, the Flavian family
experienced poverty at the time of Domitian’s upbringing and claim that
Vespasian gained ill fame under the emperors Caligula and Nero. ….
Youth without relatives
…. By the time he was 16, Domitian’s mother and sister
had long since died, while his father and brother were most of the time in the
Roman forces, commanding armies in Germany and Judea. This is why much of
Domitian’s youth was held in the absence of his close relatives. During the
Judeo-Roman wars, most probably, he was taken under the care of his uncle Titus
Flavius Sabine II, who served as the city prefect of Rome, or
even Marcus Coxeus Nerva, the Flavian friend and the future successor of
Domitian.
….
Emperor Domitian
After the death of Titus, Domitian was declared
emperor by the Praetorian Guard. He ruled for 15 years, and it was the longest
period since that of Tiberius.
The emperor was successful in strengthening the
economy by revaluing the Roman coinage, and he expanded the border defenses of
the empire. Moreover, Domitian started a massive building program to restore
the damaged city of Rome.
Domitian moved the center of government to the imperial court and rendered the
Senate’s powers obsolete. He thought the Roman Empire would be ruled as a
divine monarchy, with himself as the benevolent despot. He tried to influence
the economic, military, and cultural programs to restore the whole Empire by
following the example of Emperor Augustus. Moreover, the emperor was
personally involved in all branches of the administration.
Military Career
Important wars were fought in Britain with General
Agricola, who tried to conquer Caledonia (Scotland), and in Dacia, where the
emperor failed to achieve a decisive victory against King Decebalus. In
addition, religious, military, and cultural propaganda contributed to
developing the personality cult, and he sought to control state and private
morality by appointing himself a permanent censor. As a result, Domitian
was popular among the people and the army but was considered a tyrant by the
members of the Roman Senate.
Domitian saw himself as the new Augustus, an
enlightened despot intended to lead the Roman Empire into a new era of
brilliance.
The Stadium of Domitian
Domitian liked games, particularly chariot races, even
implementing two new factions – Golden and Purple. The emperor enjoyed
public entertainment of any kind, but mostly with dwarves and women. Domitian
founded a festival of music, horsemanship, and gymnastics that took place every
five years. However, although both the emperor and the public enjoyed such
events, their cost eventually influenced its finances.
….
Death of Domitian
….
Senatorial authors such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger,
and Suetonius described the view of Domitian as a cruel and paranoid tyrant.
However, modern historians claim that he was a successful autocrat with
cultural, economic, and political programs that led to the foundation of the
peaceful 2nd century.
No comments:
Post a Comment