What’s in a name? Do people with the same name sometimes have much in common? We can look at two famous men in the Bible, both named Joseph, and see their similarities.
Joseph of the Old Testament is the first Joseph. The Church refers to him as a type, or foreshadowing, of Christ. But many saints hold that the first Joseph is also a prefigurement for St. Joseph. Let us consider ten parallels between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph.
First, both of them had a father named Jacob. Remember the biblical references to the great patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Jacob’s son was Joseph. Matthew’s gospel, which traces the family tree of Jesus, says that Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Christ was bom.
The second parallel is that both of them were royalty. The first Joseph was a patriarch, following the great line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was the last and perhaps the greatest of the Old Testament patriarchs. St. Joseph also was royalty since he was a descendant of King David. Some Scripture scholars speculate that if Rome had not occupied Palestine at the time, and if the Davidic line was still intact, St. Joseph would have been eligible for the throne.
The third parallel between the first Joseph and St. Joseph is that both of them suffered and put up with the difficulties of their daily life without complaint. The first Joseph was minding his own business going out into the fields to see his brothers, and they plotted to kill him. They seized him, stripped him and threw him into a well. Then, when they saw a caravan of gypsies going to Egypt, they sold him into slavery. Joseph could have said, “Lord, here I am; a good man. Why are you allowing this suffering in my life?” Isn’t that what we say at times? When we have difficult times in our life, we often ask “God, why me? What have I done wrong?” But, sometimes God allows us to go through suffering and pain for a greater good, just as he did with Joseph in Egypt. Because Joseph was able to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, Pharaoh made him lord and ruler over his house.
Joseph, formerly a shepherd boy, was now one of the most important men in Egypt.
St. Joseph had to go through many sufferings as well. Mary was well along in her pregnancy when, as members of the House of David, they had to journey to Bethlehem to take part in the census ordered by the Roman rulers. That involved a difficult journey of perhaps 85 miles on a donkey with no advance lodging reservations. But Joseph obeyed the law. He went and could find no lodging since Bethlehem was packed with other visitors who came for the same purpose. He kept knocking at the doors, but found no room. Think what was going through Joseph’s mind. He was the husband, the provider, and knew that Mary’s child was of divine origin. Finally, they found a cave in the countryside where the shepherds tended their sheep, and Jesus was bom in a place where animals were sheltered. The King of heaven and earth was laid in a manger – a trough where the animals ate. Think of the suffering, the difficult time that Joseph went through. But, looking at it, good came from even that trying experience. For example, the prophecy that the Messiah was to be bom in Bethlehem was fulfilled. It was not the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Nazareth. Additionally, the Holy Family had more privacy in the cave than they would have had in the crowded inn. A secondary benefit is that now we can sing songs like “Away in a Manger” rather than “Away in a Marriott.”
The fourth similarity between Joseph and St. Joseph is that both left their homes and went to Egypt. Joseph was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. St. Joseph fled to Egypt with his family to escape Herod’s wrath.
The ability to understand dreams is their fifth similarity. In the Old Testament, Joseph gained fame for this ability. While still in prison, he was able to interpret the dreams of the baker and the cupbearer of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh had a strange dream of 7 fat cows being devoured by 7 skinny cows, he couldn’t understand it. Pharaoh also had the dream of the stalk, which had seven healthy ears of corn. Suddenly there was a stalk with 7 withered ears of corn, which swallowed the healthy stalk. Pharaoh couldn’t understand these dreams, so he called his magicians but they could not interpret the dreams. Pharaoh had heard of Joseph’s ability, so he sent for him and asked him to interpret these dreams. Joseph gave Pharaoh the interpretation – that God was going to bless Egypt with 7 years of plenty, but after that would come 7 years of terrible famine. Because of this insight into the future, Pharaoh picked Joseph to be the manager of his house and ruler over all his possessions.
St. Joseph also understood the meaning of his dreams. The New Testament relates four dreams, which St. Joseph understood and unhesitatingly acted upon. The first was when he had doubts about whether to take Mary as his wife. The angel said “Fear not, Joseph, to accept Mary as your wife. It is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this Child.” Joseph recognized the guidance in the dream as coming from God and followed the angel’s bidding. Likewise, he recognized the urgency of the message conveyed in the second dream – “flee into Egypt. Herod is trying to kill the Child.” In the third dream, Joseph understood that it was safe to return to Palestine since Herod was dead. Lastly, in the fourth dream, Joseph accepted the angel’s advice to return to Nazareth because Herod’s son had become king. St. Joseph’s ability to recognize the divine guidance sent to him in dreams literally saved the Holy Family on several occasions.
The sixth parallel is that of being the ruler of the king’s house and possessions. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, made Joseph ruler and lord over all his possessions in Egypt. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, was ruler over the King of the Universe’s home in Nazareth. Jesus, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, chose Joseph to be the head of the Holy Family, to be the lord, master and ruler over the house.
The seventh similarity between the Joseph of the Old and Joseph of the New Testament is their purity and chastity. Remember what happened to Joseph. Joseph was a very strong man, a very handsome man, and Potiphar’s wife fell in love with him and tried to seduce him. Day after day she would ask him and try to lead him into having an adulterous affair, but Joseph steadfastly refused. Eventually, she lied and told Potiphar, “Look what this Hebrew tried to do to me.” Potiphar put Joseph into prison, where he stayed for two years.
In the New Testament, St. Joseph is the virginal husband of Mary.
St. Joseph, the most pure and chaste man that God ever created, married the Blessed Mother. They lived a virginal life their entire marriage. The beautiful virtues of purity and chastity are thus exemplified in both Joseph of the Old and St. Joseph of the New.
The eighth parallel is that they both experienced poverty. Joseph of the Old Testament had everything material taken from him – his brothers stole his inheritance, he was sold into slavery and owned nothing, and he was unjustly imprisoned for a few years.
St. Joseph knew poverty as well. We are told in the gospels that he was a carpenter, a member of the working class. When he uprooted his family and went to Bethlehem and then to Egypt, he probably took his tools with him so he could continue earning a living, but that is about all he had in terms of material goods. We also know that the Holy Family was poor because at the Presentation they gave two turtle doves, the offering of the poor.
Both Josephs were responsible for feeding the entire world, which is their ninth similarity. Because of Joseph’s advice, Egypt was the only country in the world that had grain during the famine. The other nations came to Egypt to buy their grain. Thanks to Joseph, the peoples of the world had food, and Pharaoh became even richer and more powerful. How does that relate to St. Joseph? St. Joseph was the nurturer and the one who fed Jesus. He practiced his trade and earned the money to buy the food, which fed Jesus. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, taught Jesus a trade and provided his initial religious instruction. He helped Jesus grow to manhood and become for us the Eucharist, feeding us with his own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Thus, indirectly Joseph has fed the entire world with the Bread of Life.
Lastly, we can go to both Josephs in times of need. The people of Egypt and the other nations went to Joseph for the grain they needed during the great famine. During this time of suffering there was a saying, “Go to Joseph for what you need.” Because Joseph had such tremendous influence with the Pharaoh, many peoples’ petitions were answered. We priests, religious and lay people can go to St. Joseph in our time of need. Whatever difficulties and sufferings we have, we go to Joseph because he has great influence with his Son, the King of the Universe. Jesus, good Son that he is, still follows the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and, so long as it is in accord with the will of the Father, does as his mother and foster father ask.
These, then, are ten similarities between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph, two of the greatest figures in the Bible. Let us now recognize how they have experienced many of the same trials and sorrows we face, and let us follow their example of steadfast love and service of God. They stand ready and able to help us, if we but “go to Joseph.”
“Both Nero and Hadrian had a special devotion to enriching
and reviving the culture of the Greek world”.
Neil Godfrey
The term redivivus, meaning a ‘return to life’, can trigger for me the thought that the supposedly re-vivified one might be, in fact, the same person as the original, living one.
And sometimes this supposition pays off. See for instance, my article:
where I was ultimately able to identify Micah, known by scholars as “Amos redivivus”, with the prophet Amos himself.
Using a different, but somewhat analogous, methodology, I had thought to identify – as one – two other famous ancient potentates on the basis that scholars have found it very difficult to determine which is the architecture of the one, and which is that of the other.
I am referring this time to Herod and Hadrian, who, though situated about a century apart according to the conventional history, were, according to my revised view of things, actual contemporaries and colleagues.
For I have identified Herod as Philip the barbarous Phrygian, who was second to Hadrian in the latter’s guise as King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. On this, see e.g. my article:
identified a second – as I believe Philip was to King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – for each of this latter king’s alter ego guises.
(The second is listed in bold on the right):
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ – Philip the Phrygian
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus – Herod ‘the Great’ / Marcus Agrippa
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus ‘Caligula’ – Marcus Agrippa
Hadrian – Herodes Atticus
There is some commonality of names amongst my candidates for Herod ‘the Great’: Herod/Herodes, of course; Agrippa, a name common to the Herods; and Atticus, into which family Marcus Agrippa married. And, as I have only just discovered, there was a Marcus (Julius Agrippa) Herod.
Architectural quirks
I have picked up some of these in various articles.
And I am sure that there are a lot more yet to be pointed out.
For instance:
Herod and Hadrian
As referred to at the beginning of this article, their architecture can be difficult to differentiate.
“Differentiating the works of the two sovereigns is neither easy nor, in the context of current politics, especially sought after. In some quarters, Herod – the half Jew – is viewed in a poor light, but then Hadrian, the nemesis of the Jews, is castigated as a vicious tyrant …”.
Building-wise, in Jerusalem, it is apparently difficult to separate Herod from Hadrian.
In the city of Jerusalem both Herod the Great and the Roman Emperor Hadrian built on a monumental scale. Directing public works little more than a century apart, the two monarchs built in a similar style and with a common – Roman – technology. In the later Hadrianic period material from the earlier Herodian constructions was reused, resetting the distinctive “Herodian” blocks in new locations.
Both potentates wielded vast resources but an order of magnitude set them apart. For all his grandiosity, Herod was the client king of a minor kingdom; Hadrian was master of the Roman world at an apogee in the empire’s fortunes. Among the resources at the emperor’s disposal were the legions, the most effective instrument of construction, as well as destruction, in the ancient world.
Differentiating the works of the two sovereigns is neither easy nor, in the context of current politics, especially sought after.
In some quarters, Herod – the half Jew [sic] – is viewed in a poor light, but then Hadrian, the nemesis of the Jews, is castigated as a vicious tyrant: “may his bones rot” is an injunction found in the Talmud itself. Much of the material written about the temples of Jerusalem fails even to mention the edifice built by Hadrian.
Great claims are made for Herod as a builder but could it be that Aelius Hadrianus was rather more involved in the sanctuary of Temple Mount than is generally supposed?
Jupiter on Temple Mount
“At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.”
– Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.12.
A Hadrianic temple complex superimposed on Temple Mount
Caesarea: Emperor Hadrian upgrades the city of Herod
An example from Caesarea provides some guidance for what may have happened in Jerusalem. Herod built his famous harbour of Sebastos (Greek for Augustus) with Roman engineers, Roman technology and Roman marine concrete. The port is regarded as Herod’s greatest work. But Herod’s trademark city actually owes more to Hadrian than it does to the Jewish king.
It was Hadrian who substantially developed and improved every aspect of the city.
In the original foundation, Herod built for his own enjoyment a palace, a theatre and a racetrack and to further ingratiate himself with his Roman master, a temple to the imperial cult. The civilian city beyond the port began to develop only after Caesarea had been chosen as the seat of Roman prefects and headquarters of the 10th Legion – from 6 AD onward, a decade after Herod’s death. Only then did it acquire its thorough-going Roman character.
Caesarea’s development actually accelerated during the conflict with Rome.
The city became the marshalling point for the Roman army and in July 67 sixty thousand troops assembled here.
The 5th legion joined the 10th in winter quarters in the city. Vespasian rewarded the locals with Italian rights and raised the status of the city, henceforth Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea.
After the war Caesarea grew rapidly, becoming the economic and political center of the province and hub of a new road network. Hadrian himself visited the city in 130 and again in 134, re-founding the city after extensive rebuilding which followed a severe earthquake two years earlier. The city responded with a Hadrianeum, a temple dedicated to the emperor.
Herod’s palace, refurbished as the governor’s headquarters, was extended fifty metres further east. Herod’s racetrack was shortened and redeveloped as an unusual elongated amphitheatre, with double the original seating capacity. A huge new hippodrome 460-metres long was built inland and a second amphitheatre was added on the north side of town. Pagan shrines proliferated, including a Mithraeum developed from an Herodian warehouse.
From the evidence of the theatre and elsewhere, “Herodian” materials were reused in the reconstruction.
By Hadrian’s time parts of the outer harbour had already deteriorated. Tectonic activity had lowered the ocean floor and sunken parts of the breakwater were causing a hazard to shipping. Hadrian’s repairs to the harbour included attaching a new pier to the Herodian structure in order to inhibit silting up of the inner harbour.
The Hadrianic city extended far beyond the Herodian foundation and had no defining city wall for more than 300 years. To supply the city’s larger population, Hadrian set the 10th legion to rebuilding the town’s aqueduct. Engineers tapped into a new water source, the Tanninim River, and attached a second aqueduct to the first built by Herod more than a century earlier. Thus, there are two channels to the famous aqueduct – one Herodian, the other built by Hadrian. The style and materials of the two channels are identical and in fact are indistinguishable but for the identifying plaques of the legion.
Fortunately, the legionaries who built the later channel also attached the emperor’s name – or we can be sure it would all be claimed for Herod! ….
The fall of Jupiter
Hadrian’s erasure of the ruins of the Herodian temple was so complete and the expulsion of the Jews so effective that by the 4th century even the location of the temple edifice was beyond recall.
“Rabbi Yermiah, son of Babylonia came to the Land of Israel and could not find the site of the Temple.”
– Tractate Shevuot (Oaths) 1 4b. ….
[End of quotes]
This already tells us a lot.
Like some Fifth Dynasty Egyptian Sun Temples that should be there, but just aren’t:
“It is clear too that, upon closer inspection, the heads of the Hadrian roundels were recarved to resemble Constantine. This type of re-decoration was somewhat unusual but not unheard of in Rome when the monument was first erected. Scholars agree that the recarving was part of a deliberate effort made by the arch’s designers to reinforce a link between Constantine and Hadrian”. ….
[End of quote]
We find that Marcus Agrippa, a supposed Roman, but “born in an uncertain location” (I suggest Phrygia), built an Odeum (Odeon) in Athens.
Likewise did Herodes Atticus, a presumed Athenian, build an Odeum in Athens.
“The original structure was destroyed some 100 years after it was built during the invasion of the Erouloi in 268 AD”. ….
The Olympeion in Athens, begun supposedly by Peisistratos (C6th BC), is said to have been resumed by Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (C2nd BC), and later by Hadrian (C2nd AD).
But wait a minute, doesn’t our table above (an emperor and his second) identify Antiochus with Hadrian? I wrote about this Olympeion in my article:
“The Panhellenion was devised with a view to associating the Roman Emperor
with the protection of Greek culture and of the “liberties” of Greece – in this case, urban self-government. It allowed Hadrian to appear as the fictive heir to Pericles, who supposedly had convened a previous Panhellenic Congress …”.
Peisistratus
Rethinking Revolutions Through Ancient Greece: “Pisistratus is a prolific builder in Athens and inaugurates the Olympeion that Hadrian is to finish”.
Dedicated to Olympian Zeus, the Olympieion was situated on the bank of the river Ilissus southeast of the Acropolis.
It was built on the site of an ancient Doric temple, the foundation of which had been laid out by the tyrant Pisistratus, but construction was abandoned several decades later in 510 BC when his son Hippias, whose rule had become increasingly despotic, was expelled from Athens and a democracy established (he would return twenty years later with the Persians at Marathon, Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, VI.54ff). Aristotle cites the temple and the pyramids of Egypt as examples of how rulers subdue their populations by engaging them in such grandiose projects. Kept poor and preoccupied with hard work, there was not the time to conspire (Politics, V.11). Over three centuries later, in 174 BC, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (king of Syria and the “vile person” of Daniel 11:21) commissioned the Roman architect Cossutius to begin work again on the same ground plan. He did so “with great skill and taste,” says Vitruvius, constructing a temple “of large dimensions, and of the Corinthian order and proportions” (On Architecture, VII, Pref.15, 17). Of all the works of Antiochus, the Temple of Jupiter Olympius or Olympian (as the Romans called it) was the “only one in the world, the plan of which was suitable to the greatness of the deity” (Livy, History of Rome, XLI.20). But when the king died a decade later, the temple still was “left half finished” (Strabo, Geography, IX.1.17), although it extended at least to the architrave of the columns still standing at the southeastern corner. ….
Plutarch writes that Pericles “introduced a bill to the effect that all Hellenes wheresoever resident in Europe or in Asia, small and large cities alike, should be invited to send deputies to a council at Athens.” The aim was to discuss matters of common interest—restoration of the temples the Persians had burned down, payment of vows to the gods for the great deliverance, and clearing the seas of pirates. ….
More than half a millennium later [sic] Hadrian picked it up where it had fallen. During his previous visit, his attention had been caught by the synedrion, or council, at Delphi for the Amphictyonic League, but it did not include enough Greek cities. He decided to launch a new Panhellenion along Periclean lines. As before, a grandly refurbished Athens was to be the headquarters and Greek cities would be invited to send delegates to an inaugural assembly. Member communities had to prove their Greekness, both culturally and in genetic descent, although in practice some bogus pedigrees were accepted.
The enterprise had a somewhat antiquarian character. So far as we can tell from the fragmentary surviving evidence, Hadrian aimed at roughly the same catchment area as Pericles had done—in essence, the basin of the Ionian Sea. Italy and Sicily were excluded once again, and there was no representation of Greek settlements in Egypt, Syria, or Anatolia. The emperor made a point of visiting Sparta, presumably to ensure that it did not stay away as it had done in the fifth century. ….
“Hadrian brought the Temple of Olympian Zeus to completion after it had languished for 600 years. He had four more-than-life-size statues of himself at its entrance and was worshipped along with Zeus”. ….
Or, did Hadrian both inaugurate and complete the Olympeion?
A final piece of architecture to be considered here is the famous Pantheon in Rome.
Built by Marcus Agrippa, or Hadrian? In my scheme they are allied contemporaries.
The Pantheon has represented the greatest expression of the glory of Rome for more than two thousand years. The story of the Pantheon is inseparably tied to the Eternal City … and been its image through the centuries. Built by Agrippa between 25 and 27 BC the Pantheon was a temple dedicated to the twelve Gods and to the living Sovran. Traditionally it is believed that the present building is result of the radical reconstruction by Hadrian between 118 and 125 AD. It is the only ancient Roman building that has remained practically intact through the centuries. ….
The Pantheon bears the name of M. Agrippa. Would not Hadrian have over-written his own name there had he come on the scene a century and a half later?
Nero
Now, to the main point of this present article, Nero and Hadrian can often be – just as we have found to have been the case with Herod and Hadrian – difficult to differentiate the one from the other.
I, tantalised by the common description of Hadrian as a “Nero Redivivus”, found myself wondering again if Nero and Hadrian could also be merged into one.
But now I think that the situation is as with Herod and Hadrian, like but different.
The better solution in the case of Nero and Hadrian, is, as with Herod and Hadrian, not to identify the two names as belonging to the one person, but to regard the one as being the second dutifully serving his emperor (that is, Hadrian).
Name wise, Nero equates far better with Herod than it does with Hadrian – who, though, we now know had many guises.
There is no doubting that Nero and Hadrian were alike in certain ways – so much so that the latter can be discussed in contexts of Nero redivivus.
Here is Neil Godfrey’s view of this very subject (ibid):
Hadrian as Nero Redivivus
Key points in this post:
Both Nero and Hadrian waged war with the Jews.
Both Nero and Hadrian had a special devotion to enriching and reviving the culture of the Greek world
Nero pursued the cultic-religious worship of his own person, Hadrian that of Antinous (and more to be covered in upcoming posts)
The travel coins minted by Hadrian mirror the Corinthian local coinage reflecting Nero’s visit there.
The rule of Hadrian witnessed a flourishing of Jewish apocalyptic writings, including the identification of Hadrian with Nero redivivus.
Hadrian brought the Temple of Olympian Zeus to completion after it had languished for 600 years. He had four more-than-life-size statues of himself at its entrance and was worshipped along with Zeus. ….
[End of quote]
Consider also the comparisons between Nero and Hadrian as provided in Calenda’s article: https://calenda.org/885625
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. 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. The conference intends, for the first time, to explore this aspect, with the particular aim of examining the possibilities offered by art, architecture, theatre and literature for developing new languages and consolidating that intertwining of culture and politics that became distinctive in the image of power until the present day, without forgetting the huge legacy left by the two historical figures and their influence in the arts exercised over the centuries. ….
[End of quote]
I think that many more comparisons between Nero and Hadrian can be made.
Nero, famous for his corruption and depravity, and his portrayal in plays and movies, is actually a most obscure character. He stands in need of a serious alter ego, or more.
“Who was Nero?” is the question posed in an article below:
“Most of what we know about Nero comes from the surviving works of three historians – Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. All written decades after Nero’s death, their accounts have long shaped our understanding of this emperor’s rule. However, far from being impartial narrators presenting objective accounts of past events, these authors and their sources wrote with a very clear agenda in mind”.
We found a similar situation with Hadrian, who, whilst leaving an enormous impression upon antiquity, is, strangely, poorly sourced.
Anthony Everitt writes of this in his book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, 2009): “The most serious problem has been the ancient literary sources of which a mere handful survive, mangled and mutilated”.
And, in the case of King Herod, although much has been written about him (at least by Josephus), I was stunned to learn:
In the article: Who was Nero? We read at the beginning: “Nero is one of Rome’s most infamous rulers, notorious for his cruelty, debauchery and eccentricity”.
The same could be said for my alter ego (one of them) for Nero, King Herod:
…. Tony Reinke has a helpful podcast interview with Dr. Maier about the paranoid tyrant [Herod] who ended up killing three of his sons on suspicion of treason, putting to death his favorite wife (of his ten wives!), killing one of his mothers-in-law, drowning a high priest, and killing several uncles and a couple of cousins.
They also talk about Herod’s plot to kill a stadium of Jewish leaders, and … the slaughter of the innocent male children recorded only in Matthew 2 ….
Who was Nero? continues – notice the return of the name Agrippa, in Agrippina:
But was he really the tyrant that history has painted him to be? Nero exhibition curator Francesca Bologna goes in search of the real Nero.
Who was Nero?
Nero was the 5th emperor of Rome and the last of Rome’s first dynasty, the Julio-Claudians, founded by Augustus (the adopted son of Julius Caesar). Nero is known as one of Rome’s most infamous rulers, notorious for his cruelty and debauchery. He ascended to power in AD 54 aged just 16 and died at 30. He ruled at a time of great social and political change, overseeing momentous events such as the Great Fire of Rome and Boudica’s rebellion in Britain. He allegedly killed his mother and two of his wives, only cared about his art and had very little interest in ruling the empire.
But what do we really know about Nero? Can we separate the scandalous stories told by later authors from the reality of his rule?
Most of what we know about Nero comes from the surviving works of three historians – Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio. All written decades after Nero’s death, their accounts have long shaped our understanding of this emperor’s rule. However, far from being impartial narrators presenting objective accounts of past events, these authors and their sources wrote with a very clear agenda in mind. Nero’s demise brought forward a period of chaos and civil war – one that ended only when a new dynasty seized power, the Flavians.
Authors writing under the Flavians all had an interest in legitimising the new ruling family by portraying the last of the Julio-Claudians in the worst possible light, turning history into propaganda. These accounts became the ‘historical’ sources used by later historians, therefore perpetuating a fabricated image of Nero, which has survived all the way to the present.
….
Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus on 15 December AD 37.
He was the son of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and Agrippina the Younger. Both Gnaeus and Agrippina were the grandchildren of Augustus, giving Nero Augustus’ great, great grandson a strong claim to power.
Nero was only two years old when his mother was exiled and three when his father died. His inheritance was taken from him and he was sent to live with his aunt. However, Nero’s fate changed again when Claudius became emperor, restoring the boy’s property and recalling his mother Agrippina from exile.
Aged 13 – adoption
In AD 49 the emperor Claudius married Agrippina, and adopted Nero the following year. It is at this point that Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus changed his name to Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. In Roman times it was normal to change your name when adopted, abandoning your family name in favour of your adoptive father’s. Nero was a common name among members of the Claudian family, especially in Claudius’ branch.
Nero and Agrippina offered Claudius a politically useful link back to Augustus, strengthening his position.
Claudius appeared to favour Nero over his natural son, Britannicus, marking Nero as the designated heir.
….
When Claudius died in AD 54, Nero became emperor just two months before turning 17.
….
As he was supported by both the army and the senate, his rise to power was smooth. His mother Agrippina exerted a significant influence, especially at the beginning of his rule.
Aged 21 – Agrippina’s murder
The Roman historians Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio all claim that Nero, fed up with Agrippina’s interference, decided to kill her.
Given the lack of eyewitnesses, there is no way of knowing if or how this happened. However, this did not stop historians from fabricating dramatic stories of Agrippina’s murder, asserting that Nero tried (and failed) to kill her with a boat engineered to sink, before sending his men to do the job.
Agrippina allegedly told them to stab her in the womb that bore Nero, her last words clearly borrowed from stage plays.
As he was supported by both the army and the senate, his rise to power was smooth. ….
The marriage between Nero and Octavia, aged 15 and 13/14 at the time, was arranged by their parents in order to further legitimise Nero’s claim to the throne. Octavia was the daughter of the emperor Claudius from a previous marriage, so when Claudius married Agrippina and adopted her son Nero, Nero and Octavia became brother and sister. In order to arrange their marriage, Octavia had to be adopted into another family.
Their marriage was not a happy one. According to ancient writers, Nero had various affairs until his lover Poppaea Sabina convinced him to divorce his wife. Octavia was first exiled then executed in AD 62 on adultery charges. According to ancient writers, her banishment and death caused great unrest among the public, who sympathised with the dutiful Octavia.
No further motives were offered for Octavia’s death other than Nero’s passion for Poppaea, and we will probably never know what transpired at court. The fact that Octavia couldn’t produce an heir while Poppaea was pregnant with Nero’s daughter likely played an important role in deciding Octavia’s fate.
Aged 26 – Great Fire of Rome
Peter Ustinov plays Nero in Quo Vadis, 1951. The character of Nero plays the lyre as Rome burns. Courtesy of the Everett Collection.
On 19 July AD 64, a fire started close to the Circus Maximus. The flames soon encompassed the entire city of Rome and the fire raged for nine days. Only four of the 14 districts of the capital were spared, while three were completely destroyed.
Rome had already been razed by flames – and would be again in its long history – but this event was so severe it came to be known as the Great Fire of Rome.
Later historians blamed Nero for the event, claiming that he set the capital ablaze in order to clear land for the construction of a vast new palace. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, Nero took in the view of the burning city from the imperial residence while playing the lyre and singing about the fall of Troy. This story, however, is fictional.
Tacitus, the only historian who was actually alive at the time of the Great Fire of Rome (although only 8 years old), wrote that Nero was not even in Rome when the fire started, but returned to the capital and led the relief efforts.
Aged 27 – death of Poppaea
….
Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio all describe Nero as being blinded by passion for his wife Poppaea, yet they accuse him of killing her, allegedly by kicking her in an outburst of rage while she was pregnant.
Interestingly, pregnant women being kicked to death by enraged husbands is a recurring theme in ancient literature, used to explore the (self) destructive tendencies of autocrats. The Greek writer Herodotus tells the story of how the Persian king Cambyses kicked his pregnant wife in the stomach, causing her death. A similar episode is told of Periander, tyrant of Corinth. Nero is just one of many allegedly ‘mad’ tyrants for which this literary convention was used.
Poppaea probably died from complications connected with her pregnancy and not at Nero’s hands. She was given a lavish funeral and was deified.
….
Aged 30 – death
In AD 68, Vindex, the governor of Gaul (France), rebelled against Nero and declared his support for Galba, the governor of Spain.
Vindex was defeated in battle by troops loyal to Nero, yet Galba started gaining more military support.
It was at this point that Nero lost the support of Rome’s people due to a grain shortage, caused by a rebellious commander who cut the crucial food supply from Egypt to the capital. Abandoned by the people and declared an enemy of the state by the senate, Nero tried to flee Rome and eventually committed suicide.
….
Following his death, Nero’s memory was condemned (a practice called damnatio memoriae) and the images of the emperor were destroyed, removed or reworked. However, Nero was still given an expensive funeral and for a long time people decorated his tomb with flowers, some even believing he was still alive. ….
Nero appears to have been a grandiose builder, though few of the buildings he constructed survive. Early in his reign, he began building a gymnasium and a bath-house, which was used to stage the Neronia. Although one can find reconstructions, these are highly speculative and there is nothing left. There is even disagreement as to whether [the] baths and gymnasium formed a single complex or were separate buildings, partly because the limited sources are unclear.
Nevertheless, a gymnasium was a Hellenistic ideal imported from the East and there is an association of gymnasia and bath houses. The building was in itself innovative, but not wildly so.
Agrippa built the Laconicum Gymnasium in 25 BC, which seems to have associated a large public bath house with a gymnasium. The building was adorned with Greek statuary and may have been built as a public amenity to echo the grand private villas of the rich and powerful. It is possible to understand Nero’s building both as … a civic improvement echoing the work of Augustus and Agrippa and as making available the benefits of Greek culture to the wider Roman public.
More obviously regal was the his building of the Domus Transitoria. This building is also lost, destroyed in the great fire of Rome and buried under the Domus Aurea. It appears to have been a major construction designed to encompass some of the grand gardens in Rome (horti maecenatis) into the imperial palace.
The topography of the region is extremely complex, partly because of the repeated building over of the area in this period. Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius had all built palatial structures or extended existing buildings.
LANCIANI’S 1897 MAP OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY NORTH OF THE COLOSSEUM
In 64, a fire swept through much of Rome. Only four of the fourteen districts survived more or less intact, while seven were badly damaged and three destroyed. Nero had been away from the city when the fire broke out, and returned when it threatened his palace. He was not able to save the palace. It was at this point that he was moved to sing of the calamities that befell cities (Tacitus, Annales 15.38-39). After five days, the flames were put out by creating a large fire break. Almost immediately, a further fire broke out, and it is this second fire for which Nero was blamed.
In part, it was because it was associated with the estate of Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect. In response to the fire, Nero spent money housing the displaced and rebuilding the city.
There were people who might benefit from a conflagration. Property would be left unguarded. there were opportunities for the organised to loot. Chaos allowed mischief (Dio, 62 16-17). But Rome was a city built chaotically, using a mix of materials, especially wood in upper stories. It was and is a hot city and without pressurised water or anything like a fire-brigade, it was a fire risk. There had been major fires: this was just one of the biggest.
Nero made the most of this opportunity. Rubble was cleared and used to fill the marshes at Ostia. The city was replanned with wider streets. Building regulations imposed an upper height limit on tenements. Wooden beams were restricted and each building was required to have its own wall to create the smallest of firebreaks. Water supplies were better regulated so that each district would have a substantial supply. Much of the vast sums required appear to have come from the emperor, though he may have required aristocratic contributions (Suetonius, Nero 16.1; Tacitus, Annales 15. 40–43).
The fire gave Nero room for the most extravagant of buildings, the Domus Aurea, the Golden House of Nero …The site was rapidly remodeeled after AD 69 and formed the basis of buildings of Vespasian and Trajan.The remains are fragmentary and subject to on-going archaeological investigation and restoration. This was a huge construction that bridged the Palatine and Esquiline Hills. The vestibule was of sufficient size to accommodate a 120-foot-high statue of Nero. The palace was fronted by a triple colonnade stretching for a mile. Extensive gardens were attached to the house, including vineyards, woods and pastures, all stocked with appropriate animals and, around a pool, there were models of buildings. There were rooms of immense luxury: a dining room with an ivory ceiling, another that revolved somehow. His baths were filled with sea water and sulphur water. It was a dominating monument of conspicuous luxury. The building monumentalised Nero’s domination of the city of Rome. Here was a representation of the world within a city, all overseen by the towering presence of Nero (Suetonius, Nero 31; Tacitus, Annales 15. 42). Nero’s house was a public expression of his power, a palace of unbelievable opulence that marked imperial civilization.
The palace was later dismantled: its meanings too tyrannical for imperial Rome. The massive statue of the emperor which gave the name to the Colosseum was reworked into a statue of Sol. The Colosseum itself, built under Vespasian, became the grand democratic location of games and public celebrations, turning the palatial into the public, turning away from the ideologies of Neronian Rome.
But the Flavian remaking of the area draws attention to the ideologies embedded within the architecture. We may dismiss the palace is grandiosity and luxury, symbolic of how out of touch Nero was with the mood and needs of his people, but that is to put the story before the evidence: we supposedly know Nero was out of touch and so we see his buildings as reflecting his moral failings. But what if turn the question round? A great palace was not a private house. A gymnasium was a public amenity not just a gesture of cultural allegiance to the Greek world. Is it possible that Nero’s ideological construction of Rome’s greatness needed the great palaces and Greek-style buildings? Augustus is praised for his extensive monumental building programme. Why is Nero critiqued?
[End of quote]
The lost buildings of Nero are fully compensated for in the massive and extensive building programme undertaken by Nero’s alter ego (according to my reconstruction): Marcus Agrippa/Herod.
“A congiarium of three gold coins was distributed in Rome … with Trajan’s portrait on the obverse, in military dress … and Hadrian’s portrait on the reverse, identical to Trajan’s in profile but with a beard and nude,
bearing the name Hadrianus Traianus Caesar”.
Amanda Claridge
As far as conventional history is concerned, Trajan and Hadrian are two most notable Roman emperors, with Hadrian being perhaps the adopted successor of Trajan.
Sometimes in ancient history, though, as I have found, two supposed sequential kings, each considered to be great in his own right, have turned out to be just the one king. My major example of this phenomenon, worked into a university thesis (2007), was the neo-Assyrian case of two of the greatest names, Sargon II and Sennacherib, generally considered to have been, respectively, a father and his son.
My first step, assisted by a colleague, was to see a significant overlap in the reigns, something not recognised by conventional scholars. Partial overlap began to merge into a total overlap, eventually leading me to conclude that Sargon II was Sennacherib:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
After long consideration about Trajan, and where to fit him into a revised scheme of things, I have come to the same conclusion as with those neo-Assyrian names, that Trajan was his supposed successor and adopted heir, the look-alike Hadrian.
Why do coins frequently include the name Traianus (Trajan), or Traian, in Hadrian’s name? For example:
RIC II, Part 3 (second edition) Hadrian 57. Denarius. Struck AD 117. Rome mint. Obv: IMP CAES TRAIAN HADRIANO AVG DIVI TRA, Bust of Hadrian, laureate, bare chest, traces of drapery on far shoulder usually visible, right Rev: PARTH F DIVI NER NEP P M TR P COS // FORT RED (in exergue), Fortuna seated left, holding rudder and cornucopia
Could this presumed succession of Roman emperors, Trajan and Hadrian, have been, instead, just the one mighty ruler?
And was this ruler an ethnic Roman anyway?
While I have left Trajan virtually untouched so far, for want of ideas about him, I have written a lot about Hadrian, who, I have concluded, was not a Grecophile Roman at all, but a Seleucid Greek, the most notorious one of all: King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
Yet Hadrian was much more even than that.
In my article:
Hadrian was not ‘Nero Redivivus’ – but was close to it
I identify Hadrian all at once as – apart from Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus; and
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus ‘Caligula’
with Constantine also under some serious consideration.
According to my revision, Hadrian belonged, not to the C2nd AD, but to the time of the Maccabees, when he, as King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, the “little horn” of Daniel 7:8, desecrated the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem.
In other words, Hadrian, the Philhellene emperor, was a Seleucid Greek, and not a Roman.
But I have also made a second major chronological move, collapsing the Maccabean era, in part, into the Infancy period of Jesus Christ – the Bar Kochba revolt against Hadrian pertaining to the Maccabees:
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
Comparative Essay on Roman Empire: Rule of Augustus and Trajan
….
There are many debates as to which emperor was the better ruler, Trajan or Augustus? It can perhaps be considered an unfair question, as each ruled the empire in vastly different political climates. Trajan ruled for nineteen years between 98 AD to 117 AD and is considered to be one of the greatest emperors in the history of Rome. Known as ‘Optimus Princeps,’ which translates to ‘greatest of princes,’ Trajan’s rule is believed to be “the period in history during which the human race was most happy and prosperous.” So much so that subsequent emperors often attempted to elevate their own reign by association with Trajan.
He conquered many lands and grew the Roman Empire to its largest expanse in history which resulted in his rule being a time of great prosperity for Rome. Similarly to Augustus, Trajan embraced his role as emperor by showing his support for adhering to traditional hierarchies and senatorial morals. He did this by openly shunning many of Domitian’s policies, such as his preference for equestrian officers. Many political writers of the Imperial Roman Age considered this to be one of the many reasons Trajan was such a well-received emperor, as he ruled less by fear such as Domitian and Titus, and more by acting as a role model and setting a good example, “men learn better from examples.” Aligning himself with Augustus’ autocratic way of ruling, Trajan “wielded autocratic power through moderatio instead of contumacia – moderation instead of insolence.” It was this approach to autocracy, his deferential behaviour towards his peers, that garnered him the respect and regard as a virtuous monarch.
Trajan is acknowledged to have created the best model of ruling an empire than any emperor before or after him. Domitian only strived to please the military and paid little attention to the Senate and Nerva concentrated his efforts on the Senate and disregarded the army whereas Trajan proved that actions could be taken to satisfy both the Senate’s and the army’s needs. However, in direct contrast with Augustus’ way of ruling, Trajan transformed the role of the emperor as he encroached on the senate’s authority, turning several senatorial provinces into imperial provinces in order to quell out-of-control spending on the local magnates part. Trajan essentially absolved the role of the senate as, according to Pliny, Trajan was a good emperor due to him approving and blaming the same things that the Senate would have approved or blamed.
Trajan garnered widespread support from his subjects as he presented himself very differently than previous emperors. Upon Trajan’s arrival in Rome he displayed a refreshing and grounding humble personality, as instead of arriving in a litter or chariot, he walked amongst the streets, greeting his subjects, senators and knights with equal warmth. Trajan did what no emperor had done before him, when referring to his subjects and in particular the army, Trajan uses the term ‘we’ instead of ‘them,’ showing solidarity and fellowship with those others considered to be below them. Trajan even went as far as becoming a ‘regular’ soldier himself; eating in the military mess, marching on foot, fording rivers, campaigning in person and honouring his fellow fallen soldiers with an annual ceremony. It is a measure of a great leader when one can inspire bravery and action in so many, and it is because of the way Trajan presented himself as ‘one of them’ that his troops were willing to risk all and display great prowess on his behalf, as he would do for them. This is further exaggerated when we look at documents written regarding Trajan’s death,
“After his death, it was said that no other emperor excelled or even equalled him in popularity with the people and his memory remained green for centuries. It was said that he displayed the utmost integrity and virtue in affairs of state and arms. The forum of Trajan, no matter how often we see it, is always wonderful.”
In conclusion, the conception of the role of the emperor across the years, particularly between the rule of Augustus and Trajan, experienced many changes. Augustus established the empire after his victory at the Battle of Actium and therefore began his rule as a strong and respected leader. He transformed the crumbling ruins of the Republic into a thriving and successful empire.
Augustus’s role as emperor consisted of heavy intervention into both private and public affairs, undertaking the role as ‘pater’ for all Roman households and sculpting the ‘perfect’ Roman family. He delegated much of his power to the senate and the people of Rome, whilst simultaneously establishing himself as an autocratic ruler. Additionally, Augustus believed that one’s family also played a part in the role of an emperor. Augustus was well-received and liked by his subjects, especially after his revival of traditional Roman morals and many popular policies of the idealised Republic. Although Trajan and Augustus shared many similarities in the role they performed as emperors, the main difference in the conception of the role of the emperor was Trajan’s decision to effectively absolve the power of the Senate and rule on their behalf. Trajan is considered to be the most loved of all the Roman Emperors as he presented himself as a humble, well-meaning and hard-working man. From walking on foot with his fellow soldiers to walking the streets and greeting his subjects, Trajan appeared to align himself as a fellow subject and soldier. If one is to attempt to answer the question of who was the better emperor, one can consider the quote, “May he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan,” which suggests that Augustus was a good emperor establishing the empire at a terrible time of turmoil and that Trajan was a good emperor because he began his rule at a time when Rome was already stable and flourishing. However, both emperors presented themselves as one who wanted to rule with the intent to improve the political, legal and social systems of Rome and did so without the use of fear or intimidation.
1. Spanish heritage: Both Trajan and Hadrian were of Hispanic origin.
2. Military achievements: Both emperors had successful military campaigns, with Trajan conquering new territories and Hadrian consolidating existing ones.
3. Administrative reforms: Both Trajan and Hadrian implemented administrative reforms to improve the functioning of the Roman Empire.
4. Attention to infrastructure: Both emperors invested in public works and infrastructure projects to improve cities and provinces.
5. Civic projects: Trajan and Hadrian sponsored numerous civic projects, such as the construction of public buildings, roads, and bridges.
6. Favorable public opinion: Both emperors were generally well-regarded by the public, being known for their fair and just rule.
7. Interest in architecture: Both Trajan and Hadrian demonstrated a strong interest in architecture and left a lasting architectural legacy.
8. Patronage of the arts: Both emperors supported and patronized the arts, particularly literature and poetry.
9. Honoring the military: Both Trajan and Hadrian showed great respect and appreciation for the Roman military.
10. Longevity of reigns: Both emperors had relatively long reigns, with Trajan ruling for 19 years and Hadrian for 21 years.
“If the Forum of Trajan remained relatively intact until the late Antiquity, it virtually disappeared in the Middle Ages. Many of the forum’s buildings were destroyed in an earthquake in 801.
Subsequently, the Forum’s materials were looted and new buildings were gradually built above the ruins of the ancient monuments”.
The main culprit is given here as an earthquake, followed by looting, and new buildings over built on the site.
I discussed a similar problem for ancient Egypt, with Sun Temples unable to be found:
A similar problem arises with the so-called Fifth Dynasty,
with four of its supposed six sun temples undiscovered.
A different approach is obviously needed when, after decades or more of searching, a famous ancient capital city such as Akkad (Agade) cannot be found; nor can the tombs of virtually an entire dynasty (Egyptian Second); nor can four whole sun temples (Egyptian Fifth Dynasty).
The Second Dynasty of Egypt, however – whose beginning I would re-date to about a millennium later than does the conventional model – appears to overlap, in great part, with (according to what I have already tentatively determined) the very beginnings of Egyptian dynastic history.
That the Second Dynasty may be, to a great extent at least, a duplication of the First Dynasty, may be supported by the disturbing (for Egyptologists) non-existence of Second Dynasty burials (Miroslav Verner, Abusir, p. 16. My emphasis): “The tombs of the rulers of the Second Dynasty, which for the most part have not yet been discovered, represent one of the greatest problems of Egyptian archaeology”.
A similar problem arises with the so-called Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, with four of its supposed six sun temples undiscovered.
Thus Jeff Burzacott, “The missing sun temples of Abusir”:
Abusir is one of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, around 16 kilometres south of the famous Great Pyramids of Giza.
Although the history of the Abusir necropolis began in the 2nd Dynasty, it wasn’t until King Userkaf, the first ruler of the Fifth Dynasty, chose to build here that the Abusir skyline changed forever.
What Userkaf built here wasn’t a pyramid; he nestled his final resting place close to the world’s first pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. What Userkaf raised at Abusir was something new – a sun temple.
The sun temple was a large, squat obelisk, raised on a grand pedestal, and connected with the worship of the setting sun. Each day the sun sank below the western horizon into the Underworld where it faced a dangerous journey before rising triumphantly, reborn at dawn. It was a powerful symbol of cyclical resurrection. The obelisk shape is likely symbolic of the sacred benben stone of Heliopolis, which represented the primeval mound, the first land to rise from the waters of Nun at the dawn of time, and where creation began. This was the centre of the cosmos.
For the next 70 years, Abusir was a hive of activity as the pyramids of Userkaf’s sons, Sahure (rightmost pyramid) and Neferirkare, (leftmost pyramid), as well as his grandson, Niuserre (centre) raised their own step pyramids and sun temples there.
Buried in the Abusir sand are also the barely-started pyramids of Fifth Dynasty pharaohs whose short-lived reigns saw their grand monuments hastily sealed, just a few courses of stone above the desert.
Six sun temples are mentioned in inscriptions, although only the ruins of Userkaf’s and Niuserre’s have been discovered. Hopefully, buried out there somewhere lay four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra’s rays once again.
[End of quote]
Massimiliano Nuzzolo and Patrizia Zanfagna have sensibly turned to high tech for the purpose of detecting any lost Egyptian monuments:
The Search for the Lost Sun Temples: A Glimpse from the Satellite
But, just as I would not hold much hope for Jeff Burzacott’s “four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra’s rays once again”, I would not expect satellite technology to find those four, supposedly missing, sun temples. For it is my belief that the rulers of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, just like those of the Second, have been duplicated – {a duplication of dynasties occurring at various stages of Egyptian history as well} – meaning that there were not six rulers who built six sun temples.
Most likely, then, all (two) of the sun temples that were built have already been discovered.
[End of article]
Could the same be the case for Trajan’s Forum?
That we already have more of it, but under the name of a duplicated ruler (rulers)?
Boys and wine
Trajan:
I know, of course, that he was devoted to boys and to wine, but if he had ever committed or endured any base or wicked deed as the result of this, he would have incurred censure; as it was, however, he drank all the wine he wanted ….
Although it was not uncommon for his predecessors to have taken gay lovers alongside a female spouse, Hadrian was unique in making his love “official” in a way that no other emperor had before him.
… [Hadrian] followed Trajan to the Dacian Wars in a position of fairly close intimacy; at this time, indeed, he states that he indulged in wine too, so as to fall in with Trajan’s habits, and that he was very richly rewarded for this by Trajan.
The gymnasium of Salamis in Cyprus, with its colonnaded palaestra, was built over the ruins of an earlier Hellenistic gymnasium in the 2nd century CE [sic] during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian after Salamis had been greatly damaged during the Jewish revolt in 116 CE.
I Maccabees 1:14-15
So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
The emperor Trajan … was a vicious anti-Semite, and the Jews suffered terribly through his long reign. Dreaming of extending the Roman Empire beyond the countries Alexander the Great had conquered, even to fabled India, Trajan knew that Babylon, heavily populated by Jews, lay in his path. The Babylonian Jews found themselves in a terrible dilemma: Should they resist the Romans, thereby endangering all the Jews in the Roman Empire, or should they not fight alongside their Babylonian countrymen to repulse Trajan, and thereby being accused of treason? Alarmed at the prospect of all the world’s Jews falling under Roman domination, the Jews of Babylon chose the former. As such, the Romans conquered Babylon, but held it only a short time.
Infuriated by the Jewish role in Trajan’s defeat, the anti-Semitic Greeks of Alexandria, Egypt, assisted by Roman troops, instigated pogroms against the Alexandrian Jews, the largest Jewish population of any city in the Roman Empire. Many Jews had assembled for prayer at the Great Synagogue, which was so vast that sextons standing with flags indicated the time to respond Amento the blessings.
At prayer, the Jews were massacred to the last person.
When the Jews of Cyprus and Libya discovered what had happened to the empire’s largest and wealthiest Jewish community, they readied themselves to resist the inevitable attacks. Taking their preparations as a sign of incipient revolt, Trajan sent Roman legions to assist the Greeks in wiping out the Jews. To this day, church historians, full of malice toward Jews, have distorted these events, stating that the Jews both attempted a general uprising against Rome and engaged in wholesale massacres of Greeks and Romans. However, papyrus writings of that period indicate that the Greeks were the instigators.
During Trajan’s rule, the sages had to leave Yavneh and met secretly. Convening surreptitiously in the town of Lod, in the attic of the Nitzah family, their meetings are recorded in the Talmud as B’Aliyas Beit Nitzah B’Lud. At this time, Trajan appointed a special governor for Eretz Israel, Quietus, who caused so much anguish that to commemorate the intense suffering the sages forbade brides to wear crowns. He was so hated that the date of Quietus’ removal from office was celebrated annually.
Hadrian
If Trajan was horrible, he was benign compared to his successor Hadrian, who of all the Roman emperors was the single worst ruler of the Jewish people. Remarkably, though, Hadrian began his reign favorably inclined to the Jews. Roman oppression of Jews throughout the empire ceased, and the Sanhedrin was permitted to reconvene openly, this time in the town of Usha in the Galilee. Hadrian even gave permission to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash.
Understandably, excitement in the Jewish world reached a fever pitch. Vast sums of money were gathered, and multitudes of Jews streamed toward Eretz Israel. However, the Samaritan inhabitants of the land, long-time foes of the Jews, were terrified by the possibility of a Jewish rejuvenation. Convincing Hadrian that a Jewish rejuvenation would spark a revolt, the Samaritans advised Hadrian to retract his magnanimous gesture. Not willing to change his mind openly, Hadrian allowed the Jews to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash, but stipulated that it could not be in its original place. Since Jewish law precisely fixes the site of the Temple, this decree was tantamount to a revocation of the promise.
Greatly dismayed at having their hopes so cruelly dashed, many Jews began talking openly of revolt, and it took the valiant efforts of the great sage Rabbi Joshua to ameliorate the people’s anger. The turning point was his parable of a bird that removes a bone stuck in a lion’s throat, then demands a reward. The lion replies that the ability to boast of sticking one’s neck into a lion’s mouth and escaping unscathed is itself the greatest reward. Likewise, Rabbi Joshua continued, Jews should be grateful that they are not being persecuted, and therefore not demand too much from the Romans. Mollified, the people accepted Rabbi Joshua’s logic, and calm was temporarily restored.
Over time, however, Hadrian realized that the mitzvahsof the Torah, rather than national independence, were the backbone of the Jewish people – and he set out to break it. Indeed, Hadrian took several steps that convinced the Jewish people that there was no alternative to rising up against an oppressor bent on destroying them spiritually.
First, Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the site of the Beit Hamikdash, and then began constructing a new Roman city, naming it Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem. To accomplish his aims, Hadrian completely ploughed over the remnants of Jerusalem, thereby removing all traces of the former Jewish presence. As the destruction of the Holy Temple itself, this tragedy also occurred on Tisha B’Av, and is one of the reasons for the fast. In a departure from previous Roman policy, Hadrian also decreed against the observance of key mitzvahs: bris milah, the Sabbath, and taharas mishpacha, family purity. As in the times of Antiochus, this blow against the Torah sparked the second great Jewish revolt against Rome.
[End of quote]
“As in the times of Antiochus … the … great Jewish revolt …”.
Hadrian’s era was “… the times of Antiochus … the … great Jewish revolt …”.
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD 
