Of all the ancient world rulers, very few are better known today than
Emperor Nero for his distinguished image and personality. Throughout centuries,
Nero has been depicted as one of the most vile and despotic rulers of the
Ancient world, acting as a symbol of Roman decadence through his hedonism in
food, drink, sexual depravity, lurid spectacles and the persecutions of
Christians. It is this scandalous portrayal that historians are infatuated by;
tragically causing many to overlook the fundamental question that arises when
studying Nero’s period in office: to what extent was Nero really to blame for
the events that took place during his reign? Whilst a few historians have touched
upon the possibility of controlling female and political figures influencing
Nero, this essay will attempt to uncover all the conceivable reasons as to why
Nero has accumulated such a dishonourable reputation over time and whether he
is solely to blame for the horrific events that occurred during his reign.
For the ancient world, ‘history’ is a concept very loose in
meaning in comparison to our definition in modern society. For the Romans,
history was a genre separate from the genres of biography and autobiography,
including both fiction and historical fact. Many pieces of ancient history were
predominately written as “a poem in prose” [Quintilian] to entertain the elite
in society and as a form of the historian’s showmanship. Since Roman education
consisted almost exclusively of instruction in literature and rhetoric, all
great Roman historical writers [including Caesar] studied rhetoric and thus, this inevitably resulted in the introduction of stylistic and rhetorical skills
in their work, which provided them with the flexibility to induce a certain
reaction from their readers. Of the historians who wrote genuine works of
history understood the need for credibility and unlike epic or tragic poets
were self- conscious about untrustworthy aspects of their narratives. This is
not to say that they did see the truth as important but rather the appearance
of truth as vital in order to allow history to act as a moral instruction for
future generations. [R.MELLOR] It is
clear that Roman historians had limited interest in primary documentary
material and preferred to gather material from the works of prior historians or
eye witnesses, as very few ancient historians writing about Nero were living
during his reign or attained any primary material for that matter. So what does
this mean for Nero’s reputation? Perhaps the majority of the image of Nero
conjured up as debauched emperor, has been distorted and exaggerated through
history to act as a moral teaching for future generations of the corruption
that excessive power can lead to. Alternatively, it is possible that Nero’s
immoral disposition had been inflated to add a dramatic element into ancient
history which still captivates historians to present date.
Some historians have suggested that Nero’s infamous behaviour was
rooted in his childhood and coming into reign at seventeen; IT was just an
extreme form of adolescent rebellion. Nero arguably had a ‘traumatic’
childhood, facing the death of his father at aged two and being rasied by his
mother in deprived living conditions. When Nero was a little older, his mother,
Agrippina married her uncle, Emperor Tiberius Claudius and when she had
convinced him to adopt Nero she ruthlessly killed him in order for Nero to take
the throne. Under the
guidance of his mother, his advisor Seneca and the Praetorian Prefect Afranius
Burrus, the general consensus amongst historians was that the first five years
of Nero’s rule was actually considered very successful amongst the Roman
citizens as Nero had reduced direct taxation, decreased many restrictive
governmental rules and banned capital punishment. Cassius-Dio wrote that “Nero
[was] popular with the masses” and was “to be regarded as the only successor to
the imperial power” even before his reign commenced, however he had a bad role model as
his predecessor for whilst Tiberius had been a good administrator and able
general, in his later years he became disenchanted with the business of running
the Empire and dealing with the ‘petty’ politics of aristocratic Rome.
According to contemporary sources he retreated to Capri where he indulged in
his worst vices, including the rape of the young sons of Senators. Though proof
of this is minimal, some
have progressed to say that he even bedded the young Nero. With the corrupt
Tiberius as Nero’s main patriarchal figure and a murderous mother, perhaps it
is no wonder that Nero participated in similar vices.
Flourished from Nero’s ill-famed reputation, Nero has been accused- justly
or unjustly- for the murder of many distinguished men during his reign. The
first ‘victim’ was M. Junius Silanus, a renowned political figure descended
directly through his mother from Augustus. He was allegedly poisoned during his
proconsulship of Asia, however in Tacitus’ Annals: The history of Rome [Book
13, chapter 1] Tacitus went out of his way to emphasise that Nero was not
involved in this crime: “ignaro Nerone”, without the knowledge of Nero. Silanus’
murder was soon to be followed by the death of Claudius’ freedman, Narcissus,
who was imprisoned and consequently driven to suicide. Once again, Tacitus
asserts that this death had not been ordered by Nero: “invito principe”,
against the wishes of the Emperor. With no affection or sympathy for Nero, why
then would Tacitus ‘incorrectly’ portray Nero in a positive light?
In AD 55, Britannicus [Nero’s rival for the imperial household] died
suddenly at an imperial banquet, Jeremy Paterson states that “the accusation of
poisoning was inevitable”, but in this case an alternative explanation is
available. When he collapsed, Nero’s first reaction, according to Paterson, was
that he was suffering from an epileptic fit; this claim however has been
undermined by the fact that Agrippina had exploited Britannicus to have this
‘condition’ in her attempt to discredit his claim to the throne. Given the
current circumstances the death of the prince was bound to provoke suspicion,
allowing historians who greatly disliked Nero, such as Suetonius, to depict a
vivid scene [in Nero 33] in which one of Nero’s slave had been commanded
to prepare the poison for Britannicus. This claim has however been weakened by
the fact that all members of the imperial household had tasters for their food
to protect them from the possibility of poisoning. According to Josephus [Jewish
Antiquities 20.153] few people at the time were privy of anything unnatural
about Britannicus’ death and even Tacitus admits that his death raised no
general outcry, but perhaps human nature is too preoccupied with creating links
and so everything must have a reason, in which case Nero becomes the most
likely candidate to be blamed.
Following after Britannicus’ death, Nero was next widely accused of
murdering his mother, Agrippina. According to Jeremy Paterson, in her later
life Agrippina, “in a desperate attempt to retain her hold over her son… is
supposed to have made open sexual advances to Nero”. Though evidence of this is limited, Tacitus’ Annals
[book 14 chapter 2] on this rare occasion provides different opinions of
the events leading up to her death. His account is by far the most detailed,
providing his readers with background information that in early AD 59 Nero had
found a new love, Poppaea Sabina who urged Nero to divorce his wife [Octavia]
and marry her. Agrippina would have never agreed and so the story presumes that
Nero destroyed her influence in public affairs in AD 55 and consequently forced
her to retire to her country estates. If
we are as readers to accept Tacitus’ story, we are permitted to anticipate that
once Agrippina is removed, Nero would divorce his current wife and marry
Poppaea. And so he does- but only after three years. With no reason for
delaying, Tacitus provides us with another motivation for the postponed divorce
[Annals: book 14 chapter 59]: the relationship between Poppaea and Nero
has been dated too early in an entirely conjectural effort to find some influential
reason that would fuel Nero’s desire to murder his mother. In the case of the
actual death of Agrippina, many historians have recorded that Nero arranged for
his mother to be killed in a shipwreck [which he later declared an accident]
and only when this failed and she realised that her death was imminent did she
stab herself in her womb. What grounds were there for disbelieving Nero’s claim
that the shipwreck was an accident? The main witnesses of the shipwreck were
dead; the crew were mostly likely concerned with saving the emperor’s mother
first and so risked their own lives in order to save hers, hence Agrippina
survived whilst the other members did not. Tacitus by his own admission
suggests that there is no plot and that the rush to the sides of the boat may
have been a sign of panic than an attempt to over throw the ship and drown
Agrippina. Furthermore there is no sign of a small boat in which the crew
members would use to escape, and so nothing in Nero’s narrative compels us to
disbelieve his claim that the shipwreck was indeed an accident.
After the death of his mother, Nero sent a letter to the senate,
allegedly composed by Seneca, claiming that she had caused the death of
illustrious men. Who could Nero mean? These ‘illustrious men’ must include M.
Junius Silanus and Narcissus with whom this murderous trail began. Seeing that
Tacitus was one of the few Roman historians who established his evidence from
official documents [he received the letter to the senate sent from Nero] now it
is possible to comprehend how Tacitus was able to state that these deaths were
the responsibility of Agrippina and to absolve Nero completely. The elaborate
story of Nero’s plan to murder his mother was too interesting to be set aside
in favour of a more prosaic, official account and so many Roman historians have
often chosen to sell their works with these scandalous imperial affairs,
quickly disregard any validity.
In 1983, Jerome Nriagu, a geochemist, proposed that “lead poisoning
contributed to the decline of the Roman empire”. His work was centred on
experimenting how ancient Romans, who had very few sweeteners besides honey
would boil ‘must’ [ pressed fruit juice, usually grape juice, containing the skins, seeds and stems of the fruit] in
lead pots to produce a sugar syrup called defrutum. If acidic must is
boiled in lead vessels the sweet syrup it yields will contain a quantity of
lead acetate increasing the chance of lead poisoning. The risk of lead
poisoning was also enhanced through drinking vessels and cookware made out of
lead and from lead piping used for municipal water supplies and baths. Once lead enters the body it is not quickly
removed and so tends to form lead phosphate complexes within the bone, leading
to peripheral nerve and brain damage. This can cause muscle weakness and
destroy vital receptors which prevents nerves from transmitting messages
efficiently. Lead poisoning can also interfere with neurotransmitter release,
synapse formation and the structure of blood vessels resulting in bleeding and
brain swelling. Recent research in Washington has shown that the long term
impacts of lead poisoning include learning disabilities, antisocial behaviour,
memory and concentration problems, high blood pressure, constant headaches and
dizziness. Could it be possible that Nero went mad due to lead poisoning? After
all he was renowned for his lavish lifestyle and excessive consumption of food and
wine which were predominately stored in lead vessels. Is it merely a consequence that modest
emperors such as Augustus Caesar who lead a frugal lifestyle also had better
health? Perhaps, the role of lead poisoning contributing to madness is a
subject of controversy and its validity is discounted by many historians such
as John Scarborough who concluded that ancient authors were well aware of lead
poisoning and that it was not endemic in the Roman Empire. This has been
confirmed by Roman authors such as Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius who recognised
the toxicity of lead. Vitruvius, a prominent author during Augustus’ time wrote
that the Romans knew very well the dangers of lead poisoning; nevertheless I do
not believe that this theory should be completely dismissed, given the
correlation between the emperors' lifestyle and their mental health conditions.
Cato the younger was a political figure in the late Roman republic and
a follower of the Stoic philosophy [which opines that destructive emotions
results from errors in judgement and that a person of “moral and intellectual
perfection” would not endure such emotions], was renowned for his stubbornness,
his immunity to bribes, his moral integrity and his disgust for the ubiquitous
corruption of his period. Many historians have attempted to analysis what made
Cato so morally upstanding, generally concluding that his childhood and older
influences played a big part in his ethics. If this is the case, can we blame
Nero for turning out to be insane with an unstable childhood and corrupt
influences? Both Nero and Emperor Caligula [arguably a Roman emperor even more
sadistic than Nero] were seen to have deprived childhoods: Nero had a
domineering mother; Caligula had both a formidable mother and a dictatorial
grandmother [by whom he was raised after his mother’s death]. Both were
expected to live up to the names of great men and both failed to do so.
Philosophers have also attempted to understand the reasons why
political figures such as Cato have maintained their moral principles and
others such as Verres [a corrupt Roman magistrate] have been depraved and
abused their power. Thomas Reid a religiously trained philosopher stated that
Cato “was good because he could not be otherwise” implying that Cato was
predetermined to be moral and so could not act in any other way. Reid observes:
“this saying, if understood literally and strictly, is not the praise of Cato,
but of his constitution, which was no more the work of Cato than his existence”
(EAP, 4.1 198). If Cato is free, then he
is responsible for all the good things he has done, however if he is not free
then he cannot be praised for being morally upstanding as he has no choice but
to do well. This concept of freedom is a
theory greatly disregarded when examining why Nero was brutal, many do not ask
whether he was ‘free’ to commit his atrocities or they presuppose that he was unrestricted
in his actions. Is it such a stretch to say that Nero was determined to commit
ruthless crimes? Possibly, but clearly the ancient world did not believe that
anything was left to chance. Democritus’ believed that strict causal laws
controlled the motions of atoms and that everything- including the human mind-
consisted merely of atoms in a void. Therefore in this absolute necessity there
is no room in the cosmos for chance, why then do we, as a society [where the
theory of pre-determination still prevails] assume that a person doing
evil acts must be free to do them?
Another theory significantly overlooked is the possibility that Nero
had a health problem. In Tacitus’ Annals [book 15, chapter 36],
Tacitus depicts Nero entering the temple of Vesta to offer worship when suddenly
[there was] trembling through all his limbs: “repente cunctos per artus
tremens”. Previous accounts by Cassius Dio also portray Nero “trembling” in
a similar way that resembles a fit. Although Nero was never diagnosed as being ill perhaps this trembling isn’t because he was “scared by divinity or
because he was never free from fear with the recollections of his crimes” as
Tacitus suggests but maybe this seizure was a warning sign of an underlying health problem. The 1951 film “Quo Vadis” provides a further curious
portrayal of Nero’s character as having a fickle child-like mind. The film is set in ancient Rome from AD 64-68,
during which destructive Nero ascends to power and eventually threatens to
destroy Rome’s previous peaceful order. The main subject of the film is the
conflict between Christianity and the corruption of the Roman Empire; however
the imaginative depiction of Nero as a passive, feeble ruler is a particular
point of interest and throughout the film he is seen to have a child-like
outlook. How accurate this representation of Nero is, is debatable, but I
believe that there must be some truth to this easily swayed, indecisive image
of Nero.
Throughout history Nero has been criticised as the emperor “who
fiddled while Rome burned”, but few have actually momentarily paused to
identify with him. At a young age, Nero was forced into a profession that he
took little interest to; evidently Nero was more drawn to the performing arts,
as throughout his reign he ordered the buildings of theatres in places such as
Naples, held performances in his gardens, promoted athletic games, and
increased the overall cultural capital of the empire. Although these leisure activities were taboos
for the Romans, associated with the Greek effeminate lifestyle and largely
contradictory to the virility associated with Rome, Nero craved the attention and
pleasures that came from such activities. Arguably, the whole of Nero’s rule,
for him was a chance to be in the spotlight and evidently he did not waste.
Nero saw the persecution of the Christians [who at the time were considered a
“fatal superstition: exitiabilis superstito”- Tacitus Annals Book 15
Chapter 44] as not only a scapegoat to causing the fire of Rome, but as a
spectacle in itself as Tacitus states that Nero had offered his own gardens for
the crucifixion of Christians and was putting on a circus show in which he mixed
with the crowd “with the appearance of a charioteer”. Cruel though the acts he
committed were, Nero really desired to be loved by his people and to be viewed
as a great performer of his time.
This essay does not intend to excuse Nero of his atrocious crimes that
he committed, but rather to begin to provide a wider viewpoint of possible
influences that could have potentially encouraged his vicious behaviour and to
gain an understanding of why Nero has been greatly butchered overtime. Whilst
Nero can never be completely be liberated from his brutality, I hope that
future generations that study his reign will approach this topic with a more
open frame of mind than currently in history, attempting to identify with him
rather than comply with the besotted perception of a debauched emperor.
Bibliography: (As honest as a bibliography can be)
No comments:
Post a Comment