by
Damien F. Mackey
“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”.
Like king Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’
As considered in my article:
Nero like an
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’
(3) Nero like an
Antiochus 'Epiphanes'
the
notorious emperor Nero comes across rather like an Hellenistic king, born well
after - so one could think - his proper time.
I even asked there: Was Nero really a
Hellenistic Greek?
And then considered that question with reference to another article:
According to the following article (2024), he 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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment