Talk:Hadrian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Undue or dubious interpretations

In Hadrian#Arranging the succession, we have the following sourced material (sentences are consecutive - I've separated them for convenience);

• In his Meditations, written during his reign as emperor, Marcus Aurelius lists those to whom he owes a debt of gratitude; Hadrian is conspicuously absent. [Frank McLynn,Marcus Aurelius: A Life. New York: Da Capo, 2010, ISBN 978-0-306-81916-2, p. 42]

• Marcus' sympathies would have lain with the conservative, "serious", Roman outlook of Antoninus, not Hadrian's more open, "lewd", "Hellenic" outlook – including Hadrian's almost exclusive homosexuality. [Robert H. Allen, The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia, Jefferson: Mcfarland, 2006, ISBN 978-0-7864-2349-1, p. 122. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. University of Chicago Press: 2009, ISBN 0-226-06711-4, p. 85]

I'm not sure what to make of this; I don't think it's needed. The first (citing McLynn) is straightforward; Marcus doesn't include Hadrian in his list of "positive influences"; he doesn't include Augustus either. Or his tutor Herodes Atticus. So why the pointed conclusion? The second sentence reads to me like a whole baggage of speculation. Most secondary sources accept - more or less - Cassius Dio's assertion (missing from the article, as far as I can tell) that Hadrian, despite his very notable and undeniable successes, was "loathed by the people" for his executions of leading senators at the beginning and end of his reign. These notorious killings, along with his hyperactivity, emotional outbursts and paranoia, would hardly commend him to Marcus, or any emperor with aspirations to a Stoic lifestyle. Thoughts? Is this what's sometimes known as a WP:COATRACK? Haploidavey (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the second quote is speculative and well beyond what we would call a reasonable guess; but then Allen & Boswell are gender historians and therefore wont to speculate about how the perceptions of people in high places changed commonly-held views on homosexuality (Severus and Caracalla, according to Veyne, were already actively "gay-unfriendly"). The first sentence, however, is somewhat different. Marcus' political agenda differed widely from that of his adoptive grandfather, who was, nevertheless, the founder of the Antonine dynasty proper. What we have here is something like Augustus' embarrassment with Caesar's policies - but then Augustus acknowledged his debt to Caesar, even if only in passing. Marcus, however - who as an Stoic should be able to appreciate the necessity of Hadrian's role in his fortunes - took a step further in terms of deliberate rejection. Therefore the importance of Marcus'silence. Cerme (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cerme. That's food for thought. I plan to include Dio's summation (as in my commentary above) then see how it reads; you evidently know the material much better than I; but while the first sentence seems quite pertinent, the second is less so; I'm not convinced that either one belongs here, unless in a section on ancient and modern reception. Haploidavey (talk)

Cerme, could you expand a little further on this with sources? Here would be fine, though under the "Appraisals" subheading would be better. What you've so lucidly expressed above is tantalising, and entirely relevant to appraisals of H's personality and reign. Haploidavey (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

clarification ...

The article reads "four leading senators" that were put to death, and while they may have been senators, wouldn't it be better to refer to them as generals/former generals that were in line with Trajan's imperial ambitions? The books I have generally refer to their military titles over their senatorial status. 50.111.3.59 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

First openly gay emperor

It seems noteworthy in the context of current times that Hadrian was the first openly gay Roman emperor. Should a mention of this be made in the article? Alvint69 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

First openly gay emperor

It seems noteworthy in the context of current times that Hadrian was the first openly gay Roman emperor. Should a mention of this be made in the article? Alvint69 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The article contains categories Category:Gay writers and Category:Gay royalty, but I do not see anything in the article saying that Hadrian was gay. In an ordinary article, I would just remove the categories, but in a GA it is probably good to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Persecuter

Is it not highly relevant that Hadrian was a brutal killer of Christians?--Railsmart

Because he wasn't? He more or less followed Trajan's passive policy. The more aggressive persecutions began under Marcus Aurelius. 50.111.20.68 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Theodore Opper

Where in Fronto did Opper find info about Hadrian in Britain? I just looked at both volumes of Fronto and there is absolutely no reference to Hadrian, Britain, or Scotland that the search function turns up in the English translation. I have only too much experience with academics who say things without proper citation or they cite to a source who cites to a source etc. that is inaccurate compared to what was supposedly said. Re-check Opper. 100.15.127.199 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what your complaint is? There are numerous citations of Opper in the article, I'm not sure which you are referring to. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Publius AElius Hadrian" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Publius AElius Hadrian and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Publius AElius Hadrian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The historicity of Hadrian's sexuality

It is somewhat anachronistic to categorise Hadrian under the contemporary socio-political heading of "LGBT". It's impossible to know whether these categories would align with Hadrian's own understanding of his sexuality and I wonder to what extent it might be more accurate to create a new category along the lines of "Homosexuality/bisexuality in the ancient world" or something similar. There are issues with this too but it would perhaps feel less like retrospective recruitment. Perhaps a more experienced Wikipedian with the necessary academic understanding might consider this? Either way, if "LGBT" is retained, it's applied unevenly to ancient world pages. For example, Plato is not listed in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1403:B801:99DA:914D:1566:454B (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The article does not provide any sourced information on the LGBT claim, and the categories must be removed. (I remember I removed them a few years ago, but apparently some of them were restored). Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

If the "LGBT Roman Emperors" category continues to exist, I find it difficult to see how Hadrian can reasonably be excluded from it. This page and the Antinous page both have references to the fact that they were lovers and it is common to talk about Hadrian as gay/homosexual/LGBT in contemporary media (e.g. [1]) and scholarship (e.g. R. B. Parkinson, A Little Gay History 2013; Danziger & Purcell, Hadrian's Empire, 2006 "Like his predecessor Trajan, Hadrian's orientation seems to have been exclusively homosexual"). I'm not aware of any current scholarship that disputes this. The attention paid to this in contemporary media means that it is probably a "defining" characteristic. Obviously, "LGBT" is a modern term, but any discussion of the appropriateness of using it to categorise ancient people should happen elsewhere (CfD or relevant wikiprojects), not here. 21:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the statement is not sourced. Why do not you source it and then you can add the category.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)