by
Damien F. Mackey
“That a portion of
Hadrian’s Wall remains standing today
has largely been
attributed to the work of John Clayton,
an official in the city
government of Newcastle and
an antiquities scholar,
in the 19th century”.
Who was this Hadrian?
Most of Hadrian’s life “is a garbled
confection”, according to Mary Beard, a trustee of the British Museum: A very modern emperor |
Books | The Guardian
….
Most of it is a garbled confection, weaving together without much regard for
chronology allegations of conspiracies, accounts of palace intrigue, and
vendettas on Hadrian's part - plus an assortment of curious facts and personal
titbits (his beard, it is claimed, was worn to cover up his bad skin). To fill
the gaps, to make a coherent story out of the extraordinary material remains of
his reign, to explain what drove the man, modern writers have been forced back
on to their prejudices and familiarising assumptions about Roman imperial power
and personalities.
So,
for example, where - thanks to the surviving ancient literary accounts - it has
been impossible to see Nero as anything other than a rapacious megalomaniac,
Hadrian has morphed conveniently into cultured art collector and amateur
architect. Where Nero's relationships with men have to be seen as part of the
corruption of his reign, Hadrian has been turned into a troubled gay. Hadrian
seems familiar to us - for we have made him so.
The
British Museum exhibition presents Hadrian as an appropriate successor to the
first emperor of China and his terracotta army, both key figures in the
foundation and development of early imperial societies. Maybe so. But an even
better reason to visit this stunning show is to see how the myth of a Roman
emperor has been created - and continues to be created - out of our own
imagination and the dazzling but sometimes puzzling array of statues, silver
plates and lost keys of slaughtered Jewish freedom-fighters.
In
the previous paragraph, Mary Beard had told how poorly attested Hadrian is as
far as biographical evidence goes:
The
only fully surviving ancient biography is a short (20 pages or so) life - one
of a series of colourful but flagrantly unreliable biographies of Roman
emperors and princes written by person or persons unknown, sometime in the
fourth or fifth centuries AD. This includes one or two nice anecdotes, which
may or may not reflect an authentic tradition about Hadrian.
So,
might our impressions of Hadrian today be more like a neatly bottled Claytons instead
of the real thing?
After
all, it was John Clayton (d. 1890) of the Victorian era who saved Hadrian’s
Wall from well-nigh extinction after the vandalisation of it by General George
Wade in 1746:
Hadrian's Wall Archives -
The History JarThe History Jar
“I
first heard of General George Wade as the man who built the Military Road from
Newcastle to Carlisle by using some conveniently placed worked stone –
Hadrian’s Wall. It didn’t endear him to me. Across on the Continent he’d
served in the Nine Years War and the Wars of the Spanish Succession. In
1724 Wade was sent off to inspect Scotland having done a stint as an MP for
Bath and having foiled various Jacobite plots in the SouthWest in 1719. It was
he who orchestrated barracks, bridges, roads and fortifications by which the
north and Scotland could be controlled – he was made a field marshall for his
pains. But it wasn’t until 1746 that he vandalised Hadrian’s Wall. His Military
Road is the B6318. It used masonry from the wall and near Brampton simply ploughs
along its path”.
According
to the text books: Hadrian’s Wall | Roman History, England, UK
| Britannica
“Emperor Hadrian (ruled
117–138 ce) went to Britain in 122 and, in the words of his biographer,
“was the first to build a wall, 80 miles long, to separate the Romans from the
barbarians.” The initial construction of the wall took approximately six years,
and expansions were later made”.
But
I have quite a different story to tell about Hadrian – that he was not who
our history books say he was, or that he was not when they say he was.
For
a start, the suggestion that the emperor Hadrian could have put down a massive
revolt of the Jews in Israel in 132-135 AD – some 60 years after (70 AD) the
whole nation had been destroyed, its prized Temple annihilated, and the
survivors marched away into captivity, and death – is a pure fantasy.
The
Grecophile Hadrian was not a Roman emperor at all.
He
was the Seleucid Greek tyrant, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ so-called IV:
Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian
(6) Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian
This
connection is strengthened insofar as:
A Jewish tradition even has Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian
(5) A Jewish
tradition has Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ as Emperor Hadrian
That
would necessitate back-dating Hadrian by about 300 years, to c. 170 BC, the
time (conventionally estimated) of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
However,
in my revised chronology, I have brought Antiochus/Hadrian further down the
time scale by identifying him also as the emperor Caesar Augustus, at the time
of the Nativity of Jesus Christ (Luke 2):
Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’
of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus
And
Hadrian may have yet other important alter egos relevant to this
article.
For,
according to my view, he was also Diocletian, whom professor Gunnar Heinsohn
had previously re-set as a contemporary of Caesar Augustus:
q-mag-augustus-and-diocletian-heinsohn-061619.pdf
a
famed census-taking emperor whom I have gone so far as to identify with Augustus:
Census of emperor Diocletian
(7) Census of
emperor Diocletian
The
emperor Diocletian was, like Hadrian, a wall builder - as, too, was the emperor
Hadrianus Trajan, my final major alter ego for this Greek tyrant:
Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan
transmutes to Hadrian
(7) Hadrianus
Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian
As
with the neo-Assyrian combination, Sargon II and Sennacherib, thought to be,
respectively, a father and son succession, but actually the same person:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just
an overlap
(10) Sargon II and
Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
so
with Trajan and Hadrian, thought to be a succession, but actually the same
person. And in this latter case, unlike the Assyrian one, even having the same
name connection, Hadrian (Hadrianus).
So,
before we could even get to Hadrian’s presumed wall, in Britain, we had needed
to (i) re-set him to the era of the Nativity, (ii) as a Seleucid Greek, not
Roman, emperor.
But
that will not be the end of my divergences from the mainstream line of thought.
For I must now ask:
Was Hadrian
ever in Britain –
and where
did he build his wall?
The first
Roman invasion of Britain was, so we are told, by Gaius Julius Caesar.
He is thought
to have invaded there twice, in 55 and 54 BC.
Except that he
didn’t, not even once.
The
C1st BC Gaius Julius was, like the ‘Second Jewish Revolt’ in the C2nd AD, a
fiction:
Julius Caesar a fictitious composite
(8) Julius Caesar
a fictitious composite
There
were apparently others who bore this name, Gaius Julius, one being supposedly –
and most intriguingly – an Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’. I wrote of him briefly in my
article:
Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ Tripled?
(8) Antiochus IV
'Epiphanes' Tripled?
… we encounter a third Antiochus
‘Epiphanes’ (with some suspiciously late Republican Roman name elements, too: Gaius Julius) who we find to have been
contemporaneous with the emperor Hadrian.
And, again, “in whom
Greek, oriental, and Roman cultural attitudes mingled”.
Although this new Antiochus is
considered to have been a person separate from Hadrian, but a friend of the
emperor’s, ‘their’ contemporaneity is, in our new context of Hadrian as
potentially Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ himself, most intriguing. ….
The
fact is that, by the Maccabean times, relevant to my revised emperor Hadrian,
the Republican (not Imperial) Romans, so admired by the Maccabean freedom
fighters, were triumphing in Gaul and remote Spain, with no mention of the far
more distant land of Britain (I Maccabees 8:1-4):
Eulogy
of the Romans. Judas
[Maccabeus] had heard of the reputation of the Romans. They were valiant
fighters and acted amiably to all who took their side. They established a
friendly alliance with all who applied to them. He was also told of their
battles and the brave deeds that they performed against the
Gauls, conquering them and forcing them to pay tribute; and what they
did in Spain to get possession of the silver and gold mines there. By
planning and persistence they subjugated the whole region, although it was very
remote from their own.
There
is no historical evidence whatsoever to suggest that king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’
at this time, who “… previously … had been a hostage in Rome”, had managed to
invade far off Britain.
So,
I have grave doubts that the emperor Hadrian (revised as Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’)
ever went anywhere near Britain.
Hence
I would be looking for other origins for the famous wall in northern England,
and would be asking: Where was the long wall that Hadrian supposedly built?
The
emperor Hadrian, who has assuredly left to posterity many remarkable buildings,
was quite capable of erecting an impressive wall.
And
when he is coupled, through his alter ego of Augustus, with such an
impressive master builder as that emperor’s ‘second’, Marcus Agrippa (= Herod):
Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man
(9) Herod, the
emperor's signet right-hand man
the building
legacy becomes even more phenomenal.
Truly,
this was one of the most extraordinary eras for building in all of ancient
history!
But
the enigmatic, and poorly documented, wall in northern England does not seem to
fit comfortably into either the chronology, or the stated purpose, of Hadrian’s
Wall (Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Hadriani 2.2):
The Latin text Historia Augusta states:
(Hadrianus)
murumque per octoginta milia passuum primus duxit, qui barbaros Romanosque
divideret.
Translation:
(Hadrian) was the
first to build a wall, eighty miles long, to separate the Romans from the barbarians.[22]
Yes,
but where was it actually built?
The
Wall is something of an enigma:
(2) Review of David J.
Breeze, Hadrian's Wall: A History of Archaeological Thought
“Little
about the Wall, however, is simple and straightforward. Rival hypotheses
regarding, for example, its dates, multiple components, sequence of
construction, and function(s), continue unabated. Given the sparse ancient
literary references, inscriptions, coins and pottery provide some clues …”.
What Is Hadrian’s Wall?
Hadrian's Wall - World
History Encyclopedia
(emphasis added):
“Hadrian's Wall (known in antiquity as the Vallum
Hadriani or the Vallum Aelian) is a defensive frontier
work in northern Britain which dates from 122
CE. [sic] The wall ran from coast to coast at a length of 73 statute miles (120
km). Though the wall is commonly thought to have been built to mark the boundary line
between Britain and Scotland, this is not so; no
one knows the actual motivation behind its construction but it does not
delineate a boundary between two countries.
While
the wall did simply mark the northern boundary of the Roman Empire in Britain at the
time, theories regarding the purpose of such a massive building project
range from limiting immigration, to controlling smuggling, to keeping the
indigenous people at bay north of the wall”.
Hadrian's Wall Was a Border Checkpoint, Not
a Barrier Against the North
“Ask
almost anyone why Hadrian’s Wall was built, and you’ll hear a version of the
same story: it kept out the Scots. It’s a tidy answer, and it’s wrong in almost
every meaningful way. The people living north of the wall in the second century
AD were Caledonian and Pictish tribal groups — culturally and politically
distinct peoples who had nothing to do with the Scots as a nation or an
identity. The word “Scot,” and the kingdom it eventually described, wouldn’t
attach to that territory for several more centuries. Projecting modern national
labels onto ancient tribal Britain is roughly equivalent to calling the legions
who built the wall “Italians.”
But
there’s a deeper problem with that myth, one any Roman military commander would
have recognised immediately: walls don’t stop armies. A determined force can go
around a wall, over it, or through it at a point of weakness. Roman generals
understood this perfectly. Static barriers were never designed to repel
invasion the way a castle gate repels a battering ram. So if Hadrian’s Wall
wasn’t a sealed military fortress shutting out northern tribes, what was it
actually for?”
The
emperor (Hadrianus) Trajan, who I claimed above was Hadrian, is supposed
to have built a wall, but in Europe.
Was
this Hadrian’s Wall?
The
trouble is, Trajan’s Wall may actually have been built well after Trajan:
“Trajan's
Wall (Romanian: Valul lui Traian)
is the name used for several linear earthen fortifications (Latin: valla) found across Eastern Europe, Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine. Contrary to the name and
popular belief, evidence shows the ramparts were likely not built under the
reign of Trajan, but later, in the period
of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages. The association with the Roman Emperor
Trajan may be a recent scholarly invention of the national
awakening movement
of the 19th century, linking the emerging identity of the modern Romanian
people to the glory of Classical Rome. Documents from medieval Moldavia referred to the
earthworks as Troian, likely in reference to a mythological hero in
the Romanian and Slavic folklore.[1] The other major
earthen fortification in Romania, Brazda lui Novac (Novac's Furrow),
is also named after a mythological hero”.
This
brings us to a very interesting point, one that might have some parallel in the
artificial creation of the House of Tudor, “… the national
awakening movement
of the 19th century”. Enter John Clayton.
John Clayton | 1792-1890 |
Our Past, Your Future | North East Museums
“John
Clayton (1792-1890) … used portions of his wealth to buy land which contained
parts of Hadrian’s Wall. In doing so, he is directly responsible for having
saved remainders of the wall, some of which still stand today. His endeavour
began when he inherited his father’s estate, Chesters, in 1832. He investigated
the site, prevented stone robbing and began excavating in 1840. He had an
active interest in preserving Hadrian’s Wall, as was noted at his memorial:
“Whenever an estate came into the market having on it some portion of the Wall,
he strove to become its possessor”. This interest involved the acquisition of
large portions of the wall and frequently rebuilding parts of it. By the time
of his death, Clayton owned close to 20 miles of Hadrian’s Wall and five forts,
out of the 80 Roman miles it used to be. This impressive amassment of the site
denotes his dedication to its conservation; he was a pioneer in the
preservation of its’ history. This was a time when archaeology was expanding as
a discipline and public interest in the Wall was increasing”.
This
was the Victorian era, which could be described as “… the national
awakening movement
of the 19th century”, or, as we shall read in the Abstract below,
“… an increase in interest in the historical pursuit …”. A fine example of this
sentiment (now swinging back to the Tudors) can be found in Amy Clarke’s
article:
What the Tudors Meant to the Victorians:
Constructing an Historical Identity in the Nineteenth Century
Abstract
In
the Victorian period there was an increase in interest in the historical
pursuit brought on by the alienating effects of industrialization,
modernization, and the rise of the middle class. In a time of great societal
and environmental change, the Victorians sought not only to re-establish their
bonds with the English past, but to escape the present and seek guidance for
the future. Moreover, the Victorians pursued an historical identity which
justified their present position as a colonial power, and which celebrated
their Protestant pride. The Tudor period was the obvious historical solution,
as it had set the precedent for England as a naval nation, and had seen the
establishment of the Anglican Church. As such, the Tudor era took a prominent
position in the popular historical mindset of the Victorians. This earlier
period in England’s history also came to be used as a means of emphasizing
Victorian ideals, such as the relationship between the concept of
‘Englishness,’ domesticity and the rural landscape. Moreover, the well-known
historical figures of the Tudor years, such as Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Mary
Stuart and Sir Francis Drake, were used by the Victorians as the champions of
nineteenth-century causes. Henry and Elizabeth were ‘Englishness’ and Protestantism
personified, whilst Mary Stuart displayed all the hallmarks of romanticized
femininity, and Sir Francis Drake was the hero of the imperialist dream.
Ultimately the Tudor era was utilized by the Victorians as a portion of the
English past which legitimized the attitudes and aspirations of the present.
The period came to stand for the very concept of an English identity, and as
such it was frequently revisited by Victorian popular historians, journalists,
children’s authors, artists and architects as a source for patriotic
inspiration”.
But
how real was it?
Was
it but a Claytons Tudor? – “Tudor” being a term about which Dr. Clifford Davies
was so highly critical. On this, see e.g. my article:
Term ‘Tudor’ has become grossly distorting
(3) Term ‘Tudor’
has become grossly distorting
“If ‘Tudor’ is misleading
about the royal family, the common designation
‘Tudor subjects’, ‘Tudor men
and women’ having ‘Tudor attitudes’, is even more so. There is no evidence that
people thought of themselves as such”.
Clifford S. L. Davies
Most intriguingly, the highly
influential Scottish Enlightenment historian, philosopher, and economist, David
Hume (1711–1776), pioneered the Tudor concept.
As I wrote in my article:
Chewing over the House of Tudor
(2) Chewing over
the House of Tudor
…. Dr Davies suggests that the
idea of a distinct Tudor period of history was first established in the 18th
Century by the historian and philosopher, David Hume.
This has proved a very
"seductive" way of approaching history, he argues. It also helps to
create the idea of a separate historical period, different from what came
before and after.
But the text-book writers and
makers of period dramas should re-think their terminology, as he says that
talking about "Tudor men and women" introduces an artificial concept
which would have had no contemporary resonance.
If historians aim to
"recover the thought processes" of past generations - he says it
means understanding how they saw themselves and their own times. ….
Here we have an C18th impetus to
Tudor (David Hume), followed later by the enthusiastic Victorian era revisitation
of Tudor.
Somewhat similarly, in the case
of the northern England wall, we have the C18th vandalisation of it by General George
Wade, followed later by its Victorian era revisitation by John Clayton.
It’s enough to make a man yearn
for a Claytons!
No comments:
Post a Comment