Domitian - likenesses to Nero
by
Damien F. Mackey
“The reigns of Nero and Domitian formed the crucible in which Christian
identity and theology were tested and refined. While Nero's persecution was
grotesquely violent and politically
motivated, Domitian's was more systemic, rooted in ideological tyranny and the
demands of emperor worship”.
Paul Bernard
Introduction
As noted in my most recent article:
Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some
who emulated him
(10)
Filling out Caesar Augustus - and some who emulated him
the thought had occurred to me, in the course
of my studying the Book of Revelation, that the supposedly two emperors, Nero
and Domitian, might have been simply one and the same persecuting tyrant of the
early Christians.
I explained my thought as follows:
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.
….
BBC - History - Historic
Figures: Nero (37 AD - 68 AD)
“Nero was born near Rome
on 15 December 37 AD and was known as a child as Domitius”.
Nero and Domitian are very
frequently compared.
Even back in antiquity,
the satirist Juvenal called Domitian calvus Nero (“bald Nero”).
Domitian was supposedly,
also, a “second Nero”:
Furturisim, Preterism, or
Hidden History? | Nicklas Arthur – Prophecy Reformation Now – HOME
“…. The phrase “second
Nero” referring to the Roman emperor Domitian (r. 81–96 CE) appears in several
ancient and modern contexts, but it stems primarily from posthumous criticism
by senators and writers hostile to him after his assassination and the damnatio
memoriae (condemnation of his memory). The most direct and commonly cited
ancient source for explicitly or implicitly calling Domitian a “second Nero” is
the satirist Juvenal (Decimus Junius Juvenalis), in his Satires …. In Satire 4,
Juvenal refers to Domitian as calvus Nero (“bald Nero”), drawing a
parallel between Domitian’s tyrannical behavior and that of Nero (r. 54–68 CE),
emphasizing similarities in cruelty, autocracy, and persecution while noting
the physical difference (Domitian was bald)”.
Damnatio memoriæ was common to Nero, to
Domitian:
Caligula,
Nero, Domitian, condemnation of memory
(10) Caligula, Nero, Domitian,
condemnation of memory
AI Overview
“Ancient writers
frequently compared Nero and Domitian as archetypal tyrants, noting shared
themes of autocracy, persecution, and moral condemnation …. Both emperors were
portrayed as cruel, authoritarian, and hostile to elites …”.
Paul Bernard writes:
The Cultural Landscape
Under Nero and Domitian — Crossroads Church Bigfork
The reigns of Nero (A.D. 54–68) and Domitian (A.D. 81–96)
represent two of the most infamous chapters in early Christian history,
particularly with respect to state-sanctioned persecution. The cultural and
political climates under both emperors were marked by imperial absolutism,
religious expectations of loyalty to the emperor, and deep suspicion of
minority groups who refused to conform. Christians—seen as subversive,
‘atheistic,’ and socially disruptive—often bore the brunt of the social
hostility.
….
Both Nero’s and Domitian’s reigns reveal how Christians
were perceived as cultural outsiders. They refused to participate in festivals,
sacrifices, or imperial cult rituals—actions seen as threats to Roman unity.
Will Durant notes, “The refusal of Christians to share in pagan customs or
festivals was taken as a sign of enmity to society, and often blamed for
natural disasters or political setbacks.”
David deSilva explains, “To withdraw from the public
rites of devotion to the emperor... was to stand against the order of the
cosmos as defined by Roman ideology.” Christians who refused to burn incense
before the emperor’s image or participate in festivals dedicated to Rome were
seen as enemies of social cohesion.
….
The reigns of Nero and Domitian formed the crucible in
which Christian identity and theology were tested and refined. While Nero's
persecution was grotesquely violent and politically motivated, Domitian's was
more systemic, rooted in ideological tyranny and the demands of emperor
worship.
Both emperors contributed to the marginalization of
Christians in the Roman world, forging a legacy of suffering that would shape
Christian memory and theology for generations. These early trials also prompted
the Christian community to solidify its understanding of faithfulness,
endurance, and the kingdom of God in contrast to the oppressive claims of
earthly powers. ….
And there are many more of such brief comparisons, and/or
contrasts.
But this one by Michael Charles is more comprehensive:
ACTA CLASSICA XLV (2002)
CALVUS NERO: DOMlTIAN AND THE MECHANICS
OF PREDECESSOR DENIGRATION*
Michael Charles
University of Queensland
ABSTRACT
The post-Domitianic literary record differs markedly from that of the
emperor's reign. Although portrayed as a victorious general, defender of Roman
morality and a great builder while alive, he is described, after his
assassination and damnatio memoriae. as a vainglorious and immoral tyrant.
While judgment will not be passed on the man himself, this article will attempt
to show that the record of Domitian's reign and character was dictated not so
much by reality as by the mechanics of predecessor denigration. What had been
acceptable (and laudable) for other emperors was to become unacceptable (and worthy
of condemnation) for Domitian. His virtues were made into vices and his
successes were rendered as failures- all in order to accord with what was
expected of a tyrant, a calvus Nero.
Juvenal, in his fourth Satire, wrote that Rome,
under Domitian, was in the control of a calvus Nero (4.38). Such an
epithet suggests to his audience that the two emperors Domitian and Nero were
identical in terms of behaviour and morality, and that it was only Domitian's
baldness that differentiated him from his notorious predecessor. Although the
reconstructed personalities of Nero and Domitian show marked differences,
analysis of the ancient literary record of both emperors reveals a great number
of similarities, so much so that Juvenal's statement is, on the surface at
least, not without justification. Nero, only a quarter of a century after his
death, had become the archetypal tyrant, a man whose supposed cruelty,
profligacy and debauched character had become legendary amongst the Roman
aristocracy. …. Domitian, when he was depicted as another Nero, thus received
the ultimate condemnation. This paper will attempt to provide a 'case in point'
for predecessor denigration and a brief resume of the Domitianic and
post-Domitianic reaction to aspects of the emperor's conduct with the exception
of Philostratus and the Byzantine epitomes of Cassius Dio, 'post-Domitianic'
will refer to accounts written in the reigns of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, to
the general exclusion of later writers such as Aurelius Victor and John
Malalas. It should be noted, too, that the present article necessarily owes
much to Ramage's work on predecessor denigration … and to the various scholars
who have attempted to rehabilitate the last Flavian emperor. ….
As is widely recognised, the majority of post-Domitianic
literature relating to Domitian's reign was penned either by the senatorial
elite, a small and judgmental section of Roman society, or by poets who sought
the favour of the new regime. The eques Suetonius, Hadrian's one-time ab
epistulis, remains a notable exception. Consequently, a 'good' emperor was
one who took pains to placate the Senate, one who strove to preserve the façade
of senatorial rule. A 'bad' emperor, however, was one who failed to disguise
the true nature of imperial power. Such an emperor, at least according to those
who wrote after 96, was Domitian. Yet this explains only in part why the
post-Domitianic literary record is so condemnatory.
We might simplistically say that Domitian was
portrayed as a calvus Nero because he executed so many members of the
senatorial order. …. Yet Claudius, one of the deified emperors, may have put
more senators to death than did Domitian. …. Why, then, did the Senate fail to
condemn Claudius? Why was the despised cripple allowed to become Divus
Claudius, a god like his grandfather Augustus? The answer, at least at a
superficial level, is surprisingly simple. Claudius was succeeded by Nero, his
adoptive son. Although Nero was neither friend nor admirer of Claudius - he
owed his position entirely to the machinations of Agrippina the Younger, his
scheming mother - it was in his best interests to deify his 'father' and thus
consolidate his rule.
Like Domitian … Nero felt the need to ally himself with
divinity in order to reinforce public perceptions of his imperial
infallibility. …. Of course, the new emperor's pietas did not last for
long. This is evidenced by the publication of the Apocolocyntosis Divi
Claudii (generally thought to have been written by Seneca the Younger) and
Suetonius' affirmation that rites associated with Claudius' deification were
soon neglected (Claud. 45). …. Still, Nero's initial action prevented an
official condemnation of the dead Caesar. Despite the accounts of Suetonius and
Tacitus, and the scurrilous verse of Juvenal, Claudius' position as a 'good'
emperor remains, to this day, surprisingly intact. …. Nero, on the other hand,
had also executed a great many senators, yet he, like Domitian, suffered damnatio
memoriae. For the most part, this was the result of being succeeded (after
the abortive reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius) by a new and necessarily
hostile dynasty that was eager to allay senatorial fears of renewed tyranny.
In literature, the present was regularly depicted as a
happy age, an era in which, as Tacitus relates, it is permitted to write about
the current regime without compromising one's integrity (Hist. 1.1). …. It
is the ideal age, a revivification of the ancient aetas aurea, compared
with which the near past must inevitably suffer by comparison. Against this
backdrop of felicity and good-will, the maleficia of the past receive
suitable amplification, and, as a happy consequence, appear antithetical to the
beneficia carried outby the incumbent dynasty. Consequently, the
sycophantic, upon the installation of a new regime, are presented with an
opportunity to ingratiate themselves with their new master, while the somewhat
more principled, by means of Mahnschriften (such as Pliny's Panegyricus),
are able to encourage the reigning emperor to follow the precepts of sound rule.
All of this, of course, is a commonplace, and one that has been oft-discussed.
Yet the very men who had prospered under Domitian's rule seem to have been
loudest in their condemnation of the last Flavian. Pliny the Younger, for
instance, was most scathing in his criticism of the preceding dynasty (and
Domitian in particular). Indeed, he openly espouses the concept of denigration
of predecessor: 'hoc primum erga optimum imperatorem piorum civium officium
est, insequi dissimiles' (Pan. 53.2). …. Yet, despite his protests to
the contrary," it seems reasonably clear that Pliny had enjoyed the
especial favour of the 'tyrant'. ….
Tacitus was at least honest enough to admit that he owed his good fortune to
the Flavian principes, not least of all Domitian. …. Those who sought to
denigrate Domitian post mortem did so for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which were political. …. Even if these detractors had not privately
opposed the actions and behaviour of the dead Augustus, they saw no reason to
refrain from echoing the official position of abhorrence in their subsequent
literary work. Few would have wholeheartedly believed that the res publica
was freer under the new dynasty that it had been under Domitian - the
atmosphere may have changed, but the mechanisms of power remained. In their
quest to secure the favour of the incumbent regime, and, in the case of the
senatorial elite, facilitate a more willing dialogue between emperor and
Senate, Domitian's detractors deemed it acceptable, and appropriate, to stoop
to whatever means they felt were necessary to tarnish the dead emperor's
reputation. To be fair, the Senate, as a body, had little choice but to
demonstrate their fervour for the new regime by roundly condemning the last of
the Flavian principes. Domitian had left no suitable heirs: …. (T.
Flavius) Vespasianus and (T. Flavius) Domitianus, his adoptive sons, were too
young and had not the political and military experience to command the
requisite loyalty of army and Senate. …. Therefore, it would have been largely
fruitless, if not dangerous, to have done anything but damn the memory of Domitian
and allow the instruments of its propaganda to accord him the mantle of a tyrant,
a calvus Nero - and this is precisely what the Senate and its minions
did. …. By this means, the senatorial class, amongst whom we must number Nerva and
Trajan, was able to exculpate itself from the collective guilt of association
that had stemmed from its previous approbation of the 'tyrant'.
It is
interesting to note that many of Domitian's recorded actions are similar to
those of Nero. But are these similarities more than coincidental? It would seem
so. For instance, Suetonius alleges that no one was allowed to leave the
theatre while Nero was singing, a rule which caused pregnant women to give
birth where they sat, people to escape over the theatre wall, and others to
feign death in order to be carried out as if for burial (Ner. 23.2).
Similarly, Cassius Dio (67.8.3) tells us that Domitian refused to allow anyone
to leave a gladiatorial event that was being held in the Circus Maximus,
despite the fact that a storm had come up suddenly and many of the spectators
were soaked in the ensuing downpour. Although Domitian himself rugged up
against the chill, he would not allow others to change their attire. Some of
the spectators, or so Dio asserts, subsequently became sick and died as a
result of having to endure the miserable conditions.
Domitian's alleged financial problems are
comparable to those of Nero. According to Suetonius (Dom. 12.1), Domitian was
rendered 'exhaustus' by the cost of his buildings and spectacles, as well as by
the increase he had made to the soldiers' pay. …. In order to remedy this
situation, the emperor resorted to robbery: 'nihil pensi habuit quin
praedaretur omni modo' (Dom. 12.1) …. To support this rather extravagant
claim, Suetonius states that 'bona uivorum ac mortuorum usquequaque quolibet et
accusatore et crimine compiebantur', and that estates were confiscated if it
could be 'proved' that the deceased had named Domitian as his heir. Pliny, too,
adds that Trajan will never replenish the treasury, if emptied, 'innocentium
bonis' (Pan. 55.5) …. The allusion to the last Flavian is clear. …. Nero,
like Domitian, had also drained the state's resources with his spectacular
games and lavish lifestyle. In order to remedy the situation, he reportedly
used calumniae (i.e. false charges of maiestas) to raise funds
when he found that he did not have enough money to pay the soldiers (Ner.
32.1). ….
The examples above are only two of number of
similarities that are found between Nero and Domitian. As will be seen below,
there are others.
It seems evident that those who wrote after
the death of Domitian thought that the best method to attack the assassinated
emperor was to compare him with Nero. The question whether the last of the
Julio-Claudians really was the depraved monster that the ancients described is
beside the point - the only thing that needs to be considered is that the
literate population regarded Nero as the archetypal tyrant. …. There should be
no doubt, therefore, that Juvenal, Martial, Pliny and Tacitus invoked the name
of Nero when relating the actions of Domitian in order to denigrate the dead
emperor. ….
Comments