Hadrian

[Nephele]

Since I'd already brought up some of Hadrian's legislative reforms earlier in this thread, I thought I'd research further. In an article that appeared in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register (June, 1926), P.E. Corbett, Professor of Roman Law at McGill University wrote:

 

"Spartianus informs us, in the eighteenth chapter of his Vita Hadriani, that Hadrian brought in [to the imperial council] 'praecipue' Juventius Celsus, Salvius Julianus and Neratius Priscus. It was the beginning of the greatest age of Roman jurisprudence and most of the constitutiones were almost certainly the result of consultation among such jurisconsults as these."

 

Reforms in the treatment of slaves (in addition to those I mentioned earlier in this thread) are cited by P.E. Corbett in his article. Corbett cites other reforms as well, besides those just dealing with slaves, but I'll stick to the slavery issue here since I initially brought it up.

 

One such reform was actually a restoration to the old rule that a child born of a union between a free woman and an enslaved man, would have the status of being free. This rule had changed over time prior to Hadrian, so that such a child born of a slave would also be the slave of his father's master, and the free mother would have no choice but to turn over her child to the master. Corbett states: "This was a derogation from the so-called jus gentium, which provided that the child should, in the absence of lawful marriage, follow the condition of the mother. Hadrian restored the old rule."

 

Another reform of Hadrian's in favor of manumitted slaves was to correct the abuse of heirs who chose not to follow the wishes of their benefactor's will in granting freedom to his slaves. Hadrian's law compelled such heirs to honor the manumission of slaves from the inherited estates.

 

And, one more reform, as related by Spartianus, was that Hadrian forbade the killing of slaves except after judicial condemnation.

 

Largely, he seems to be one of the most practical rulers Rome ever had and he did not seem do things simply because it made him popular.

 

I agree, and imagine that Hadrian's reforms in the treatment of slaves didn't help to make him popular with the slave-owning population of Rome. But the practicality (if not also the morality) of these reforms is apparent when one realizes that many a slave ultimately became a freedman of Rome and, as such, a loyal subject of the Emperor.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

I don't know about which expansive pleasures and easy life are you talking. He did not build palaces or luxurious ships and did not indulge in rouinous games at public expense for plebeian popularity. He was more of a stoic than an epicurean.

Yes he did build palaces, or more to the point, country estates filled with follies designed to resemble cities throughout the empire. I think its at Tivoli but correct me if I'm wrong. I really cannot see Hadrian as a stoic - he did like his prosperity - why else did he go for the throne?

 

I doubt that commoners cared too much when some of the elite were put to death.

Oh but they did. Remember people exposing their children at the palace gates because Nero had murdered his mother? Public image was as important then as now. patronage too was a vital link in popularity. If your patron is executed, your bonus and support has gone. The common people really didn't have a lot to look forward to, and knowing their emperor was to going to provide free entertainment and the essentials of life without restrictive laws could mean a great deal to the masses. For example, look how the plebs felt about Tiberius, who was stingy about staging entertainment. Emperors do care about popularity with the plebs - to fail to do so risks your rivals taking that popular support for themselves and we know what happens then.

 

And he showed much more concern about his succesion than any other emperor.

No, don't accept that.

 

He was the first emperor to recognise the need for a roman heavy cavalry and he led to a large extent the puting down of the jewish rebellion.

The need for heavy cavalry was due to the changing military balance, not because he was any wiser as a military leader. In order to maintain safe home rule he needed to offset the threat of potential enemy action, therefore the need for heavy cavalry was forced on him. Also, there's no reason to believe he was the person who thought it necessary in the first place - thats your assumption - it may well have been his officers who told him that such formations were needed.

 

As for his reign being the zenith of the empire, he inherited that situation, he didn't create it. I agree he was a capable ruler but he doesn't engage the public admiration that other emperors did. You might say his publicity office weren't too hot, but in all honestly, I don't think he cared too much for projecting himself on the public stage, preferring to remain aloof.

Edited November 3, 2007 by caldrail

[Primus Pilus]

I doubt that commoners cared too much when some of the elite were put to death.

Oh but they did. Remember people exposing their children at the palace gates because Nero had murdered his mother? Public image was as important then as now. patronage too was a vital link in popularity. If your patron is executed, your bonus and support has gone. The common people really didn't have a lot to look forward to, and knowing their emperor was to going to provide free entertainment and the essentials of life without restrictive laws could mean a great deal to the masses. For example, look how the plebs felt about Tiberius, who was stingy about staging entertainment. Emperors do care about popularity with the plebs - to fail to do so risks your rivals taking that popular support for themselves and we know what happens then.

 

I agree that the people were certainly interested in the goings on of the aristocracy. However, I disagree that Hadrian in particular was very concerned with what the people thought... at least the people in Rome anyway. Hadrian seemed to have a personal disconnect with the city, the senate and the common inhabitants, hence part of the reason for his many travels. He was probably vastly more popular in the provinces than in the capital.

[caldrail]

Actually that was a general statement and i did point out that hadrian didn't seem so bothered about public opinion. I guess if everything was peaceful then the plebs would think that was great? However, having done some reading on Hadrian since there are indications he did more than I previously thought. Part of the problem, and this applies to any emperor, is that an advance or event occurs at the emperors decree or with his seal on it and we automatically believe he was the sole instigator. There's a part of me that still sees hadrian as someone who wasn't so proactive, but at least someone who did listen to advice. Maybe, maybe not - I'm quite prepared to listen to opinions on that. I also think his personality wasn't so charismatic either, so he was relying on position to achieve his ends rather than persuasion.

[Primus Pilus]

Part of the problem, and this applies to any emperor, is that an advance or event occurs at the emperors decree or with his seal on it and we automatically believe he was the sole instigator. There's a part of me that still sees hadrian as someone who wasn't so proactive, but at least someone who did listen to advice.

 

Interestingly as well, Hadrian's ego may have been a major motivating factor in his various popular building endeavors. Perhaps simply seeing his own designs come to fruition outweighed any sense of popular appeal. I am not suggesting that Hadrian was not a benefactor of the arts or a great contributor to 'culture' by any stretch, only that I find his personality quite intriguing. The Historia Augusta and Cassius Dio are very similar in that they both present widely conflicting views of the man's behavior and personality depending on situations.

[caldrail]

Perhaps because Hadrian at heart was a reserved complicated personality? In other words, a difficult man to characterise, or even to like, and I suspect the crowds never really saw anything in him to cheer for.

[Kosmo]

There was little in his personality that will please the roman plebs. He spend his time and money away, he looked and behaved like a greek, he did not enjoy their games, he had a strange beard, he made his lover a high profile person etc.

Probably his look and behaviour made him look to much like a greek philosopher for people who did not like the greek philosophers.

Still, none of this makes him a bad emperor.