On "Hadrian and the Christians" by Marco Rizzi ***

This book is not aimed at casual readers, as evidenced by the fact that large chunks are in Italian, so you're expected to be bilingual to read it all. Not being literate in Italian, I read just the chapters in English. I came to the book because I was interested in Hadrian, but most especially in the Bar Khokba revolt, about which there is a deart of literature. As such, anything on Hadrian, since the revolt happened under his reign, usually provides some elucidation, which this book certainly did.

Alessandro Galimberti's chapter focuses on how Hadrian's relationship with the Greek mystery cults influenced his relations with the Christians and helped spur Christian apologists to write to Hadrian directly, possibly to distinguish themselves from the Jews but also possibly to ingratiate themselves after Grecian attacks on them.

Giovannia Bazzana focuses specifically on the Bar Kokhba revolt and how it was related to Hadrian's religious policy, which was one of tolerance but also integration with the Roman faiths. This latter element is what caused some Jews to rebel. In that way, it was not unlike the situation with Antiochus Epiphanes a few centuries earlier, with some worldly Jews fine with the effort but heavily devoted ones not. Christianity would have fit within such an agenda as well.

Another chapter by lessandro Galimberti focuses on what facts might be gleaned from the often unreliable Historia Augusta. It leads into a chapter by Livia Capponi on the Jewish rebellion in Egypt in 117 and how it was related to Serapis worship--and indeed, how Christians in Egypt may have merged the two belief systems.

A final chapter by the editor focuses on how Christians likely saw themselves in the years just before Hadrian.

On "Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome" by Anthony Everitt ****

This biography of the Roman emperor that ruled from about 117 to 138 might as well also have been a biography of the late life of his predecessor Trajan, as much of it discusses how Trajan adopted and oversaw the education of Hadrian. It provides a nice insight into Roman society at the time and much color lacking in other accounts, both those focused on larger issues and those focused on small. Everitt really shows his mastery of the subject.

Hadrian was from Spain. Orphaned at an early age, his overseers gave him a fine Roman education. In his early life, he was often less than exemplary, but he worked hard to impress Trajan as he grew older so that he might be seen as the proper heir to the throne, a role he was eventually placed into with the help of various women in Trajan's household with whom Hadrian had close relationships. Several things stand out to me about Hadrian, from Everitt's portrait:

1. Hadrian was a lover of all things Greek. He studied the literature and culture, became a devotee to Greek mystery religions, attempted to visit Greece as often as he could, and attempted to model much of his governance on Greek ideas insofar as he aimed to inculcate a kind of Roman-Hellenistic culture across the empire as a unifying force, which is a reason he ended up with so much trouble with the Jews, who he was otherwise, or at least early in his reign, rather sympathetic to. Hadrian even brought the Greek preference for facial hair to the Roman throne--all previous emperors had been clean shaven.

2. Hadrian was a fan of astrology. He used horoscopes and other divination tools to attempt to learn his future and the best means to accomplish certain tasks.

3. Both Hadrian and Trajan were homosexual. This is an interesting attribute of both these emperors insofar as this aspect of their lives played out on the throne. Hadrian had a wife, but it's questionable whether the marriage was every consummated, and he never had his own biological children, much like Trajan. He had a romantic relationship with at least one younger man/teen. Such was a lifestyle that went well with his love of things Greek, as the ancient Spartan society had encouraged military men to have relations with their underlings. In Roman society, apparently, there were few qualms with regard to men having other men as long as you were the dominant one in the relationship; if you were not, then you were considered something "less than." I suppose one could say that the point was, as a "true man," to be the dominant person in a relationship, whether your underling was a woman or a man.

4. Hadrian took a different tact in governorship than previous emperors insofar as he attempted to shore up the bounds of the empire rather than expand it. In some ways, this seems to have been a very good thing, arguably bringing more stability to the empire, save for the Jewish rebellion that broke out toward the end of his reign and that required extensive use of Roman resources (perhaps as much as half the army) to put down. It's a shame that more info isn't available about this event, but one can understand why the Romans weren't keen to write much about it.