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 what about Nero?
While the insane,
God-aspiring Nero Caesar Augustus can be likened to ‘both’ identities of
Augustus (above), Hadrian and Augustus, he even being labelled ‘a New Augustus’,
I cannot, however, conclude that Nero was yet another alter ego of
Augustus – even if we put aside the highly sanitised version of the latter, as
he is so often presented, and focus on the tyrannical madman version as can be
found in Antiochus ‘Mad Man’, and Hadrian in his excesses.
Chronologically, and for other reasons, I do not believe
that Nero can be compressed into a Caesar Augustus, but that Nero was ‘a new
Augustus’ as his emulator.
Let us pause here for a moment to get our heads around the
radical new version of Greco-Roman imperial history that I have so far proposed.
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
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 may serve 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, quite insane, extremely self-indulgent, and desirous of
being worshipped.
He best connects
with Caesar 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
“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’ = Hadrian
are:
Caligula
= Trajan = Diocletian
Phew!
Having got
all that out of the way, I can now turn to consider 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 figures of Caligula and 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
And see also
my suggestion that Saint John may have been one of the Two Witnesses of
Revelation 11:
The
Two Witnesses as Apostles of the Lord
(4) The Two
Witnesses as Apostles of the Lord
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.
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 has been
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.
Nero Caesar Augustus was ‘a New Augustus’
“Augustan ideas, designed to reinforce
power, ambition and links with the divine and the mythological history of Rome
were adopted by Nero who further attempted to embed his character within Roman
history and thereby emulate Augustus”.
Paul D. Found
As I have pointed out in not a few articles, now, I
can become suspicious when some historical character is referred to as being ‘a
[the] new’, or ‘second’, someone, or other.
For instance, we have new David’s, new Solomon’s,
new Jezebel’s, second Judith’s, and so on. Or even someone supposedly much
emulating ‘another’.
While sometimes this is simply a case of a later
historical entity being very much like, in various ways, one who has gone
before, it can also mean that a duplication has occurred, that history is
actually repeating itself, rather than merely rhyming.
A colleague’s suggestion to me years ago now that,
contrary to what Assyriologists think, there was a definite overlap in the
reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib – considered to be, respectively, father
and son – led me, piece by piece, to arrive at the conclusion that:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: [is] More than just an overlap
(2) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just
an overlap
that this was full-on subsumption: that Sargon II was
Sennacherib.
And that, then, became a vital core of my 2007
postgraduate thesis.
Again, and more relevant to this present article,
the fact that the emperor Hadrian has been described as “a mirror-image” of
king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, and “a second Antiochus” - coupled with a Jewish
tradition that replaces this king Antiochus with Hadrian in the story of the
martyrdom of the aged Maccabean woman and her seven sons - led me to writing
various articles, such as e.g.:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian
(5) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian
But
that was apparently not the end of the story.
When reading through Anthony Everitt’s 392-page
book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, NY, 2009), I was
struck by the constant flow of similarities between Hadrian and Augustus -
which the author himself does nothing to hide.
Here
are just some of the comparisons that I drew from the Anthony Everitt’s book in
my article:
Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus
(3) Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus
Pp. 190-191:
Ten years into his reign, Hadrian announced to the
world that, speaking symbolically, he was a reincarnation of Augustus.
P. x:
… Augustus, whom Hadrian greatly admired and
emulated.
P. 145:
Flatterers said that [Hadrian’s] eyes were
languishing, bright, piercing and full of light”. …. One may suspect that this
was exactly what Hadrian liked to hear (just as his revered Augustus prided
himself on his clear, bright eyes).
P. 190:
… the true hero among his predecessors was Augustus.
For the image on Hadrian’s signet ring to have been that of the first princeps was
an elegantly simple way of acknowledging indebtedness …. Later, he asked the
Senate for permission to hang an ornamental shield, preferably of silver, in
Augustus’ honor in the Senate.
P. 191:
What was it that Hadrian valued so highly in his
predecessor?
Not least the conduct of his daily life. Augustus
lived with conscious simplicity and so far as he could avoided open displays of
his preeminence.
P. 192:
Both Augustus and Hadrian made a point of being civiles
principes, polite autocrats.
….
Whenever Augustus was present, he took care to give his entire attention to the
gladiatorial displays, animal hunts, and the rest of the bloodthirsty
rigmarole. Hadrian followed suit.
P. 193:
Hadrian followed Augustus’ [consulship] example to
the letter - that is, once confirmed in place, he abstained.
….
Hadrian’s imitation of Augustus made it clear that he intended to rule in an
orderly and law- abiding fashion ... commitment to traditional romanitas, Romanness.
It was on these foundations that he would build the achievements of his reign.
Like the first princeps, Hadrian looked back to paradigms of
ancient virtue to guide modern governance. Augustus liked to see himself as a
new Romulus …. Hadrian followed suit ….
P. 196:
[Juvenal] was granted … a pension and a small but
adequate farmstead near Tibur …. Hadrian was, once again, modelling himself on
Augustus, who was a generous patron of poets ….
P. 202:
[Hadrian] conceived a plan to visit every province in
his wide dominions. Like the first princeps, he liked to see
things for himself ….
P. 208:
Hadrian introduced [militarily] the highest standards
of discipline and kept the soldiers on continual exercises, as if war were
imminent. In order to ensure consistency, he followed the example of Augustus
(once again) … by publishing a manual of military regulations.
P. 255:
[Eleusis] … at one level [Hadrian] was merely
treading in the footsteps of many Roman predecessors, among them Augustus.
P. 271:
… with his tenth anniversary behind him … the emperor
judged the time right to accept the title of Pater Patriae, father
of his people. Like Augustus, and probably in imitation of him, he had declined
the Senate’s offer for a long time ….
P. 277:
[Hadrian] was soon widely known throughout the
Hellenic eastern provinces as “Hadrianos Sebastos Olumpius”, Sebastos being
the Greek word for Augustus ….
P. 322:
The consecration ceremony was modeled on the
obsequies of Augustus.
….
And so on and on it goes.
All of this led me to conclude that:
Hadrian was more than a New Augustus
(1) Hadrian was more than a New Augustus
that Hadrian was, in fact, Augustus!
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, Augustus and Hadrian thus
needed to be packed up into the one tyrannical parcel during the Infancy
period of Jesus Christ:
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes,
as also the census emperor Augustus
Nero emulating, or being, Augustus?
Now, the last thing that I might have expected when
I was studying ancient history at school and at the University of Tasmania, in
the 1960’s and 1970’s, would be to learn that Nero Caesar was Augustus-like. In
those days I would have taken the text books at face value, without any thought
whatsoever that the chronology might be way out of whack. I would have regarded
Augustus as a most competent emperor, whilst Nero, reigning decades later, was
a tyrannical mad man.
More than half a century later, though, I see things
somewhat differently.
Augustus himself had a fair share of tyranny and
madness about him if he was indeed Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (God Manifest), whom
those who disliked him re-named ‘Epimanes’, Mad Man.
And these days, of course, I have no compunction in
altering chronologies when I think that occasion might demand.
However, despite that Nero can be likened to both Augustus
and his alter ego, Hadrian - Nero Caesar Augustus has specifically been
designated ‘The New Augustus’, by, for instance, David Shotter: THE NEW AUGUSTUS
| 9 | v2 | Nero | David Shotter | Taylor & Francis eB - I believe that Nero was a later emperor
who emulated, and hope to outdo, Augustus.
See e.g. my articles:
Tiberius Claudius Nero
Tiberius Claudius Nero knew how to bring the house down
(7)
Tiberius Claudius Nero knew how to bring the house down
That Nero was an emulator is made very clear in Paul
D. Found’s article:
MA Dissertation: Drawing on evidence from the accounts of Suetonius and
Tacitus, to what extent can we determine an effort by Nero to emulate Augustus?
In his Conclusion, he writes,
regarding philhellenism (keeping in mind that I consider
Augustus-Hadrian to have been the Seleucid Greek king, Antiochus):
There
appears to be no evidence to suggest that Augustus had any real passion for the
Greek arts suggesting that the Hellenic experiments in his building programme
were more propaganda orientated than from any personal belief or indulgence.
Suetonius (Suetonius, 2007, p.92:89) tells us that Augustus had ambitions to be
as proficient in Greek as in Latin yet despite a broad, general education, he
never learned to speak Greek with real fluency [sic], and never ventured on any
Greek literary composition. If he ever needed to use the Greek language, he
would write it down in Latin and get someone to make a translation. Despite his
early youth being affected by his mother’s banishment and a dysfunctional
upbringing, Nero developed a real passion for artistic pursuits and it appears
he was fluent in both the Greek and Latin language. One could question
therefore whether the Hellenic aspects of Nero’s rule can be seen as taking
Augustus’ patronage to a higher level. In Augustus, we see a man keen to
promote himself as a patron of the arts and ingratiate himself as part of
Hellenic culture through his buildings, coinage and sculptures but in Nero, we
see a man attempting to ingratiate himself into the same by means of fully
embracing the culture and play a personal and active part in its promotion. For Tacitus and Suetonius, no such concept of a
good quinquennium existed and both
would appear to have their sights set firmly on the artistic excesses, the
obscenities and the repression of the Senatorial circle.
However, it
is obvious from the observations of later writers and indeed, later emperors,
that Nero’s government was generally good, albeit overshadowed later on by the
obscenities reported by Tacitus and Suetonius. Nero could brook no rival in
pedigree or largesse, so he set great store by his victories in the Greek
contests which, in Rome, were to involve the defeat of his social peers. Just
as he compensated for his lack of traditional achievements by ascendency in
magnificence and luxury, so he clearly conceived the celebration for his
victories on the Greek tour as an answer to the Roman triumph. As Griffin
(Griffin, 2000, p.208) recognises, the notion of philhellenism is a complex
one.
At least two
elements have to be considered: the Greek tastes which Nero was determined to
pursue and inculcate in others, and the practical benefits he conferred on
individuals, cities, and provinces in the eastern Empire. For Augustus, the
benefits were clear as he sought to administer a smooth transition from
Republic to Principate and it is possible that Nero’s philhellenism, like much
of his cruelty and extravagance, was, in part, a response to the Augustan
Principate. ….
“Antiochus IV erected statues of himself and staged
his own games”.
“This artistic self-indulgence reached its peak
during Nero’s Grand Tour of Greece …. For over a year, Nero participated in
Greek festivals and competitions, desperate for the adoration of Greek crowds”.
History
tools
Like king Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’
The notorious
emperor Nero does comes across rather like an Hellenistic king, born well after
- so one could think - his proper time.
Was Nero really a Hellenistic Greek?
That question can be considered with reference to the following article:
According to this article (2024), Nero should have been:
Emperor Nero: A Hellenistic Ruler in the
Wrong Era - History Tools
Emperor Nero: A Hellenistic Ruler in the
Wrong Era
….
The Roman emperor Nero, who reigned from 54-68 AD [sic?], is one of the most
notorious rulers in history. He is remembered as a cruel tyrant who persecuted
Christians, murdered his own mother, and fiddled while Rome burned. His
disastrous rule ended in military rebellion, conspiracy, and suicide. Yet
viewing Nero through the lens of an earlier age – that of the Hellenistic kings
who followed Alexander the Great – casts his reign in a different light. In
many ways, Nero was a ruler born centuries too late, whose cultural appetites and
royal persona would have been better suited to the courts of Alexandria or
Antioch than the martial traditions of imperial Rome.
The
Age of Hellenistic Kingdoms
To
understand how Nero might have fit as a Hellenistic ruler, we must first
understand the Hellenistic age itself. ….
Hellenistic
kings saw themselves as cosmopolitan benefactors and civilizers, spreading
Greek culture to the wider world. They competed for glory through warfare, but
also through artistic and intellectual achievement. Ptolemy II Philadelphus,
for instance, expanded the Great Library and patronized poets like Callimachus
and Theocritus. Antiochus IV Epiphanes staged an enormous procession in Daphne
featuring parade floats, exotic animals, and troops of every nationality. ….
This
mix of royal pomp, cultural splendor, and personal extravagance defined the
Hellenistic monarchies.
….
Nero’s
Philhellenism
Against
this backdrop, many of Nero‘s most infamous acts take on a different character.
His deep love of Greek culture, considered disgraceful and un-Roman by his
biographers, would have been quite at home in a Hellenistic court. Suetonius
records that Nero spoke Greek fluently, surrounded himself with Greek advisors,
and even considered moving the capital to Alexandria. …. Most notoriously, he
fancied himself a great artist and musician, performing publicly on stage in
costumes and wigs to the horror of Roman elites.
….
This
artistic self-indulgence reached its peak during Nero‘s Grand Tour of Greece in
66-67 AD. For over a year, Nero participated in Greek festivals and
competitions, desperate for the adoration of Greek crowds. He ordered games to
be rescheduled around his performances and bribed judges to ensure he always
won. ….
He
lavished benefactions on Greek cities, granting them new buildings, statues,
and even tax exemptions. In a stunning proclamation at the Isthmian Games, Nero
"freed" the province of Achaea, exempting it from direct Roman rule.
….
To
Romans, this behavior was disgraceful, a dereliction of imperial dignity and
duties.
But
for a Hellenistic king, it would have been quite typical. Ptolemy XII Auletes
("the Flutist") earned his nickname for his love of playing the
flute, even competing in festivals. ….
Antiochus
IV erected statues of himself and staged his own games.
….
Royal trips to important Greek sanctuaries and lavish benefactions to Greek
cities were a standard part of Hellenistic kingship. In this light, Nero‘s
Grecian tour appears less a shameful spectacle and more a throwback to an
earlier model of monarchy.
….
Mismatch
with Roman Expectations
The
problem, of course, was that Nero was not a Hellenistic king operating in the
3rd century BC, but a Roman emperor in the 1st century AD.
Damien
Mackey’s comment:
Likewise, the Grecophilic Hadrian is considered to have been a Roman emperor,
but was not (in my view):
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes,
as also the census emperor Augustus
The
article continues:
His
crimes and failures were certainly his own, but his cultural misfit amplified
his vices into fatal flaws.
Born
a few centuries earlier, he might well have flourished as a flamboyant
Hellenistic ruler in the style of Ptolemy IV or
Antiochus Epiphanes, lavishing patronage on arts and letters.
….
Like emperor Hadrian
This is conveniently spelled out at:
Argument
Nero and Hadrian: two emperors united by a
passion for the arts; both reformers in the artistic and also, in particular,
in the architectural and administrative spheres. Two characters, the first much
discussed, the second much less. Recent critics have portrayed them in an
innovative and pioneering light, at least from a purely cultural point of view.
Their passion for the arts is a
well-explored topic, but rarely refers to both of them: yet, when assessing the
most famous creations only, the Domus Aurea and Villa Adriana
in Tivoli, fundamental signs of continuity can be perceived.
Hadrian's great interest in architecture
and a desire to experiment with new forms and structural solutions was fully
applied in the residential complex of Villa Adriana, thanks to the considerable
development of building techniques imparted during previous experiences in the
imperial age, like that of the Domus Aurea.
But a note needs to be inserted here about
the Domus Aurea:
“It is suggested that the
Esquiline wing, the best known of the buildings presently identified as the
Domus Aurea, is only partially Neronian, and that its eastern section is
Flavian in date”. P. Gregory Warden.
See also my article:
Nero’s missing
architecture
(5) Nero's missing
architecture
The article continues:
Just like Nero’s residence, in which the
buildings alternated with sumptuous gardens with basins, pools, nymphaea and
fountains, in Villa Adriana, despite being in a territorial and landscape
context distant from the urban dimension, the spaces containing buildings were
also interspersed with multiple forms of greenery and water features; the
different sectors responded to a precise logic based on intended use, combining
public and official elements with elements of a private and intimate
nature.
Looking at the decorative features,
the Domus Aurea represented a huge leap forward with respect
to the past, with a quantity and quality of paintings and marble coverings,
inconceivable in previous eras.
Following Nero's example, the stuccoes,
paintings and marbles, along with other rare and exotic materials such as gems
and precious metals, were also carefully distributed according to the status of
the rooms at Villa Adriana, to achieve effects of refined elegance and wonder.
The same goes for the sculptural elements, with original statues of Greek art
placed alongside works especially commissioned to decorate the new spaces and
convey the message of imperial power and magnificence.
The Domus Aurea and Villa
Adriana are emblematic examples of the will of the two emperors to pass on
precise political, philosophical and ideological choices.
In Rome, Hadrian's building activities
became materially intertwined with Nero's pre-existing constructions, as in the
Palatine imperial residence or the temple of Venus and Roma on the Velian Hill,
where the vestibule of the Domus Aurea was functional in the
construction of the religious building, involving the extraordinary
repositioning of the Colossus of Nero in the square of the Flavian
Amphitheatre. A propensity for spectacularisation in the use of urban spaces
found an ideal terrain in Campus Martius, a backdrop for Emperor
Julius-Claudius’s aquatic festivals and at the same time a source of
inspiration for the Egyptian-style settings of Villa Adriana, as well as a
place dedicated to the creation of grandiose building projects, such as the
Baths of Nero and the Pantheon.
The historical and material evidence that
links the affairs of the two emperors goes well beyond Rome, as in the case of
the imperial villa in Anzio: the spectacular complex built on the coast of
Lazio, although inextricably linked to the memory of Nero, also contains
considerable material traces accompanied by literary evidence that refers to
Hadrian’s stays in Anzio. It is a well-known fact that both emperors were
interested in the Phlegraean Fields area.
This was dictated not only by the
healthiness of the area and the beauty of the landscape, but also by the
strategic importance of the villages of Cumae, Baiae, Pozzuoli and Miseno for
the economic and military interests of the empire.
The charm of Hellenism transpires for both
emperors in all the displays of imperial power, both public and private, as
well as in the architectural designs enriched by suggestions and references to
the refined culture of the eastern provinces.
These examples reveal how human experience
and the historical legacy of the two emperors were intertwined. ….
[End of quote]
Given my previous identification of the
Seleucid king, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, with the emperor Hadrian, then
I find it most fascinating, indeed, that Nero should appear, now like Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’, now like Hadrian.
Though
I have no intention of grouping either Nero or Domitian as further alter
egos of Caesar Augustus.
