by
“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”.
Was Nero really a Hellenistic Greek?
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.
This
period begins with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the division
of his vast empire among his squabbling generals, the Diadochi
("successors"). Out of decades of conflict emerged a new political
order: a series of kingdoms stretching from Macedon to the borders of India,
all ruled by monarchs of Macedonian descent who embraced Greek culture.
The
major Hellenistic kingdoms included:
· The Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt, founded by
Ptolemy I Soter
· The Seleucid Empire in the Near East,
founded by Seleucus I Nicator
· The Antigonid Kingdom in Macedon, ruled by
descendants of Antigonus I Monophthalmus
Though
diverse in geography and local traditions, these kingdoms shared key features
that defined the Hellenistic era:
· The promotion of Greek language, art,
architecture and learning
· The patronage of scholars and the founding
of great cultural institutions like the Library of Alexandria
· Rule by charismatic kings who styled
themselves after Alexander and claimed divine honors
· The funding of lavish festivals, spectacles
and building projects to win the loyalty of Greek cities
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
History
tools continues:
And
the values and expectations of these two eras were dramatically different. Rome
had always been ambivalent about Greek culture, admiring its sophistication but
fearing its supposed decadence. For a Roman aristocrat to be too enamored with
Greek ways was considered effeminate and disreputable.
More
importantly, the position of Roman emperor was fundamentally different from
that of a Hellenistic king. Hellenistic monarchy was personal, charismatic, and
semi-divine. But the Roman principate, as established by Augustus [sic], was
predicated on the careful preservation of Republican norms and traditions. The
emperor was not supposed to be a king, but the "first citizen"
upholding Roman law and custom.
….
For
Nero to so flagrantly indulge his artistic pretensions, to spend vast sums on
Greek spectacles instead of Roman infrastructure, to place his own
self-glorification above the dignity of his office – all this transgressed the
unwritten rules of imperial conduct. What might have been praiseworthy displays
of euergetism and cultural refinement in a Hellenistic monarch were, for a
Roman emperor, disgraceful and tyrannical.
Conclusion
In
the final analysis, Nero‘s tragedy was not simply that he was a bad emperor,
but that he was the wrong kind of monarch in the wrong era.
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. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment