Emperor Nero is one of the most infamous figures in history amongst the likes of Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte. His involvement in the mass persecution of the Christian faith and the burning of Rome being key reasons for his notorious legacy. However, there are a few complications when it comes to Nero’s story due to authorial bias and inaccuracy. One thing that is most notable about all of the writings of Nero’s life is that none of them are contemporary, which could suggest that Nero is innocent of all crimes. Furthermore, Those who wrote about Nero were generally of Senatorial class. This is significant because the Senators were famously opposed to Nero’s ruling style due to his treatment of the plebs. Nevertheless, it is difficult to ignore the evidence against Nero, which would therefore suggest that Nero only deserves a slightly hostile portrayal of his character that is found in literary sources as opposed to the complete bias you might find in Suetonius or Tacitus.
First of all, one might argue that Nero doesn’t have a mainly hostile portrayal of his character within literary sources. For example Josephus says that historians may have “departed from the truth” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews) whilst writing about Nero “out of hatred for him”. In this defence of Nero, Josephus tells of the bias against the emperor, “since they have not in their writings preserved the truth of history”. This shows that some historians do not have a wholly negative view of Nero. He does, however, suggest that Nero was still a “tyrant” so it is arguable that Nero maintains the negative portrayal. Lucan is another that defends Nero suggesting there is a time of “peace and prosperity” (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, Pharsalia (Civil War) (c. 65)) under his rule. Once more, this suggests that Nero doesn’t have a hostile portrayal within literature as another is defending his rule. However, Lucan’s opinion is somewhat corrupted when he plots to murder Nero towards the end of his reign. Others who portray Nero in a positive light include Girolamo Cardona in Encomium Neronis, Seneca the Younger (however this is likely bias due to their close relationship) and Philostratus who suggests that Nero was received well in the East. Dio Chrysostom even suggests that “even now everybody wishes he was still alive” suggesting he was a much beloved emperor (Dio Chrysostom, Discourse XXI, On Beauty.). All of these respectable historians opinions are significant in deciding whether or not Nero’s portrayal within literature is actually that bad. An interesting perspective can be found in Plutos writings on Galba and Otho (Life of Galba, Plutarch)(Life of Otho, Plutarch), who suggests that Nero is tyrant and a bad man, but that none before or after him were any better. This would suggest that Nero was in fact negatively portrayed in history, but only as bad as those whom occupied the position of Roman Emperor. Although there are those that defend Nero, they are far outweighed by those that despise and write negatively about him, led by Suetonius and Tacitus (Life of Nero, Annals). One important quote when looking at how writers perceived Nero is taken from Natural Histories in which Pliny the Elder describes Nero as “the enemy of mankind” (Pliny the Elder, Natural Histories VII.8.46). This quote, I believe, summarises the hostility that historians have had towards Nero.
When discussing whether Nero deserved his mistreatment at the hands of history we must first evaluate the key sources that take a more hostile approach towards him and see if they are trustworthy. Specifically focusing on Suetonius work in the Lives of the Caesars, as much of what we know of Nero is taken from his writing. One event that Nero is solely blamed for in both the works of Tacitus (gives various accounts of events one of which blames Nero) and Suetonius is the Great Fire of Rome. Using this event it is easy to claim that much of Suetonius’ writings on the Emperor are unjust. Suetonius claims that Nero stated “while I live… let the earth go up in flames.” and also says “he set fire to the city.”. However, Tacitus suggest that Nero may have been in Antium at the time of the fire, and that when he returned he helped in relief efforts personally. Given there are so many conflicting versions of events on this matter it would be difficult to solely blame Nero, and yet Suetonius seems to do just that. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that Suetonius’ writings on Nero have an element of bias to them. Not only are there discrepancies between the events but also virtually all of the writings about Nero’s time as emperor come fifty years or more after his reign. Therefore, it would be difficult to determine how Nero acted in any of these situations as very few of the writers would have lived to see his rule, and much of the documentation of his rule was destroyed in the Great Fire. Another reason why there may have been bias in the writing is because of the rulers at the time the writings occurred. Given the dynasty had changed when the likes of Suetonius and Tacitus were writing it is likely they had to write to the agenda of their ruler who may not have been favourable towards Nero or the other emperors of his dynasty. Other historians have also commented on the bias that Nero faces in historical writings (See Josephus quotes above). Tacitus himself even said how much he owed to Nero’s rivals in improving his position in society which would cause him to write with bias (Tacitus, History). Within the context of ancient writers Nero is certainly mistreated to a degree as a lot of the good he did or tried to to do is overlooked.
One might also argue that the hostile portrayal of Nero’s rule is unfair due to the positive changes he made within the Roman Empire. What is little known about Nero is the good things he did for his people, as they are always overshadowed by the latter of his reign. Nero’s often described as a man of the people. One policy that shows this is his attempt to abolish taxes in 58 AD. Malitz described these as “well-meant but incompetent notions” (Malitz, Jürgen (2005). Nero. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.) which shows that he was a man of good morals, but maybe an idealist rather than a realist. During his first speech as Emperor, Nero spoke about “eliminating the ills of the previous regime”. This shows his intentions to help the people of Rome. H.H. Scullard writes that “he promised to follow the Augustan model in his principate, to end all secret trials intra cubiculum, to have done with the corruption of court favourites and freedman, and above all to respect the privileges of the Senate and individual Senators.”. What is clear about Nero in the earliest years of his rule is that he intended to be a good ruler. Although he may have lost his way at times, his intentions certainly remain. His desire to abolish taxation and end corruption caused the senatorial classes to hate him and the plebiscites to love him, which is likely why the writings about him during the Roman era were so negative as all those with the power to write were of a higher class. However, this does not take away from the many bad things the man did.
Nero is most infamous for the near-genocide he commits against the Jewish and Christian faiths. He begins a period of history that would see the Romans persecute Christians and Jews mercilessly until 313 AD. Tacitus suggests that Christians are executed and tortured under his regime (Tacitus, Annals, XV, 44). Tertullian suggests that he “was the first that persecuted this doctrine” suggesting the beginning of Christian and Jewish hatred within Europe began with him. Given how much suffering Christians and Jews have faced since then, as a result of Nero’s torture and persecution, it’s hard to argue that he doesn’t deserve the hostility he gets in literary sources. Further evidence of his persecution can be found from Lactantius, who said he “first persecuted the servants of god” (Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died II) further verifying his hatred for the religions and therefore the justification for his place as one of the worst men in history. It is also suggested and well documented by the likes of Tacitus that he would have huge parties with human candles as a method of torture for the Christian and Jewish peoples. His treatment of these people alone is arguably enough to say he is deserving of what is written about him. He is in fact so despised by these religions that the Sibylline Oracles suggest he will return as the “antichrist” and bring about “destruction” (Miriam T. Griffin; Tutor in Ancient History and Fellow Miriam T Griffin (11 September 2002). Nero: The End of a Dynasty).
Nero was also infamous for those he murdered. Nero murdered his mother, his stepbrother Britannicus, and his two wives Octavia and Poppaea Sabina. Nero was paranoid, angry, ruthless and violent towards his family. He murdered both his mother and step-brother in order to cement his power showing the lengths he will go to remain emperor. These qualities are similar to what we see described the by Suetonius and Tacitus which would justify their ill views of him. Clearly showing Machiavellian qualities, Nero’s reputation as a bad man is lived up to in these actions. Someone who would murder their own family deserves a bad reputation.
To conclude, the hostile portrayal of Nero in literary and historical writings is justified due to some of the foul acts he has committed including the murders of many of his family members, the mass persecution of two religions and (potentially) the burning down of Rome. To suggest otherwise would be disrespectful to his victims. However, the extent to which some of them go to in order to ruin his name, most notably Suetonius, is arguably too far as although he is an evil figure, it would be naive to suggest that he didn’t do, or try to do some good with the power he had (especially in his early reign.). It is also notably that it seems that in life and death everyone in the world has been against him, and given we know very little from the time of reign (due to the destruction of the records in the Great Fire) we can never be truly sure whether he deserves what people wrote about him many years after his death, as they likely never met or even saw him.
2019-2-16-1550344028