holy king
Deity
do we have any idea how functional nero was as an emperor and human being or are we really just reliant on anti-nero/imperial system propaganda?
Nero, the real story
- Thread starter holy king
- Start date
Most of the Roman historians that discuss Nero's reign do so in a negative light. Sometimes they acknowledge this (like Tacitus) and at least describe certain events that are more favorable to the emperor. Some of them, like Suetonius, deliberately enhanced the...ah...lurid details of imperial reigns because that's what people wanted to read. On the whole, though, most of the positive descriptions of Nero's reign have to rely on looking at what these senatorial historians mentioned about Nero to put him in a bad light, and interpret that in light of what the historians in question thought about the man himself.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
All of the personal histories known to us portray him in a bad light. Almost all of the broader historical works that recount the era of Nero's rule portray him poorly.
There's almost nothing to suggest that he was superior than his reputation purports.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
By this logic, all recorded history should be thrown out the window because there's nothing to suggest any of it is accurate.
Hardly. One does have to weigh the reliability of sources though. Which is why a history of WWII by Joe Schmoe is more reliable than one by Winston Churchill, even though Churchill's may be more informative.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Yes, but we're not speaking of a conflict between sources of varying levels of reliability. Almost all, if not actually every single one of the, known sources that pertain to Nero are hostile against him.
LightSpectra said:
What? I've made an entirely valid suggestion that Tacitus, a man who was quite content to let his hard-on for the Republic hang out, wasn't being entirely honest when he wrote the Annals. As Micheal Grant puts it rather aptly:
Tacitus' accounts of these more straightforward reigns [Claudius & Nero] did not need to revive the techniques of damning suggestion lavished on Tiberius. Instead we can enjoy the writer's extraordinary, and very Roman, gift for pictorial description. We can read of the Great Fire, or of Agrippina's murder, or Tigellinus' party - those highlighted major descriptions at which Tacitus excels - without worrying whether his playing fair. In is rather his account of Tiberius which seems to us to convict him of the hatred and partiality which he denies. But it is so enthralling that it carries conviction as history.
His interpretation of facts, then, whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious, but the actual facts which he records are generally accurate - so accurate that they involuntarily contradict his sinister innuendos. There is no doubt that he took a great deal of care in selecting his material. But where did he find it? Here we are lost. We often have no external checks on what he says. And we still know very little about his sources.
His interpretation of facts, then, whether unconsciously or through deliberate fervid intention, is often invidious, but the actual facts which he records are generally accurate - so accurate that they involuntarily contradict his sinister innuendos. There is no doubt that he took a great deal of care in selecting his material. But where did he find it? Here we are lost. We often have no external checks on what he says. And we still know very little about his sources.
As Grant states, there's lots to like about Tactius' writing. But there's also plenty to be said about the truth of much of what he wrote. Without other sources, and with his known biases already readily discernible from the text, it is hard to know if he was telling the truth. Blithely accepting that he was might have been possible for Gibbon and others in the absence of any further evidence that could be gleaned from the then existent sources. Since then we've acquired substantial non-textual information which provides an alternative window, whilst simultaneously building up a vastly superior body of critical scholarship which is ready to question the literary accounts.
A pertinent example of critical scholarship making a difference in our understanding of a historical figure would be Ammianus Marcellinus' Julian the Apostate, who it seems, wasn't really all that crash-hot, Treadgold derides his two major initiatives, the encouragement of Paganism and his invasion of Persia as 'too much too fast' and gives him all of few tepid pages and not much else in his A History of Byzantine State and Society. Marcellinus, however, wasn't inventing the wheel Tacitus did something exactly like it for Gemanicus, painting him as a paragon amongst men, solely it seems to juxtapose his personable nature against Tiberius' less than stellar man management skills. (Funnily enough Tiberius is now thought to have been a competent administrator and Emperor quite unlike the wholly negative figure that Tacitus portrays him as in the Annals).
The same applies to Suetonius the other major source for Nero's rule who was writing the literary equivalent of Women's Day. It is serviceable, but it was written long after the fact and that the whole point of it was to: 'create rapid, dramatic and often moving narrative, including, at times, impressive set-pieces...' In addition to which, the author stressed 'eccentricities rather than virtues' and in doing so 'appears to make little effort to reach a decision about the personalities he is describing, or to build up their characteristics in a coherent account'. Simply put Suetonius was heavy on the anecdotes, but not exactly heavy on anything else. Enjoyable reading with a flair for the eccentric, the obtuse and the wonderful but with little in the way of actual history.
Nevertheless, it isn't just your specific instances that you seem to fall down upon, its your general willingness to critique texts. Blithely accepting everything ever written as Gospel Truth will create junk history. Imagine if Glen Beck were the only historical source about America for some distant future society, would it be historically accurate to accept his ranting and raving about death panels as some sort of credible account of America. Of course not. If that society accepted that load of dross as the truth we'd be staring at another Gibbon...
LightSpectra said:
It may have something to do with his persecution of the aristocracy? Claudius and Tiberius have managed to be rehabilitated by modern scholarship in recent years with both now being regarded as competent rulers, with the former having a timorous nature and a stutter, while the latter wasn't a people person, both of whom nevertheless managed to steer the ship of state rather deftly. Hostile historians ain't all they're cracked up to be.
Don't forget that the book of Revelation takes what we might call a somewhat anti-Nero position too, and this presumably has nothing to do with his anti-aristocracy policies.
It seems to me that you're both right, at least to some extent. On the one hand, if all the sources for a particular person are hostile to him, that is at least prima facie evidence that that person was a bit rubbish; if he merely divided opinion you'd expect to find that reflected in the sources. On the other hand, if we have good reason to suppose that these sources would portray this person in an especially negative light anyway - as we do with Tacitus and Revelation in the case of Nero - then we may have good reason to suppose that he may not have been as bad as he has been painted; but in the absence of other sources it may be very hard to gauge how much the picture has been distorted.
People were obviously fascinated by Nero; that's clear from the fact that, after his death, there persisted a sort of urban myth that he hadn't died after all, but had merely fled to the east, where he was busy mustering an enormous army and would shortly return (referred to even in Rev. 13:3; 17:10). This "Nero redivivus" legend was still doing the rounds even in the fifth century, since Augustine mentions it in City of God City of God XX 19.3. But whether that is evidence that people liked him or hated him, I'm not sure.
It seems to me that you're both right, at least to some extent. On the one hand, if all the sources for a particular person are hostile to him, that is at least prima facie evidence that that person was a bit rubbish; if he merely divided opinion you'd expect to find that reflected in the sources. On the other hand, if we have good reason to suppose that these sources would portray this person in an especially negative light anyway - as we do with Tacitus and Revelation in the case of Nero - then we may have good reason to suppose that he may not have been as bad as he has been painted; but in the absence of other sources it may be very hard to gauge how much the picture has been distorted.
People were obviously fascinated by Nero; that's clear from the fact that, after his death, there persisted a sort of urban myth that he hadn't died after all, but had merely fled to the east, where he was busy mustering an enormous army and would shortly return (referred to even in Rev. 13:3; 17:10). This "Nero redivivus" legend was still doing the rounds even in the fifth century, since Augustine mentions it in City of God City of God XX 19.3. But whether that is evidence that people liked him or hated him, I'm not sure.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
The best argument against the competence of Nero as Emperor is the fact that he got overthrown after losing control over his own palace guard. A more competent emperor would not have lost control over his capital like that.
But we cannot overlook other important facts: that he still retained the loyalty of several provincial governors (if only he had fled Rome in time and not committed suicide...); that he remained popular after his death (those legends did indicate popularity); and that the conspiracy for overthrowing him was hatched among his aristocratic enemies. That later fact doesn't prove much, but there has been a trend in that any ruler who seeks to increase central control by the administration of a state, reinforce the public administration, makes enemies among the aristocracy. The great fire of Rome and the Vesuvius eruption created opportunities for intervention by the emperor, and Nero is even credited by Tacitus to have seized those and competently led the reconstruction, at the expense of the interest of the aristocracy (confiscation of land, taxation).
But we cannot overlook other important facts: that he still retained the loyalty of several provincial governors (if only he had fled Rome in time and not committed suicide...); that he remained popular after his death (those legends did indicate popularity); and that the conspiracy for overthrowing him was hatched among his aristocratic enemies. That later fact doesn't prove much, but there has been a trend in that any ruler who seeks to increase central control by the administration of a state, reinforce the public administration, makes enemies among the aristocracy. The great fire of Rome and the Vesuvius eruption created opportunities for intervention by the emperor, and Nero is even credited by Tacitus to have seized those and competently led the reconstruction, at the expense of the interest of the aristocracy (confiscation of land, taxation).
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Whether or not Nero was popular among certain circles of ancient Roman society is rather irrelevant, because charismatic people have the ability to retain loyalty even during disasters.
One only has to look as far as the Domus Aurea to see how much Nero really cared about the lower echelons. His extravagance in the face of economic difficulties is typical of the worst rulers in history.
One only has to look as far as the Domus Aurea to see how much Nero really cared about the lower echelons. His extravagance in the face of economic difficulties is typical of the worst rulers in history.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
What economic difficulties? The Empire was still growing (it had just annexed most of Britain), Rome was rebuilt after the fire, and the plebeians were happy. Only two governors rebelled during the his reign. The eastern city states had some powers restored and seemed quite happy with the emperor. It was not a reign of decay, far from it. The palace was a logical move, as the empire sorely lacked an administrative center. Palace and administration necessarily overlapped. Why shouldn't he take the opportunity, after the fire, to build a larger one?
Why don't you reply to the substantive parts of my argument? The ones that cast doubt on Tacitus as a reliable historical source. Remember, he did such a thorough hatchet job on Tiberius and Claudius that it was only after a substantial period of time that people began to look at either figure objectively. Suetonius wasn't exactly a historian, more a popular biographer, a style which was at the time very popular and decidedly middlebrow.
Of course, if Tacitus is to be believed, he locked the Senators in to listen to him perform.
Similar threads
