It's almost as if most of the comments are people who didn't read the article: In the museum’s catalogue, Opper writes that “there seems little reason now to take any of this seriously, beyond what it reveals about the authors involved.”
Truly, a comment we could apply here (and I freely admit much if not even all of my own)
Almost all of the writing about significant Romans is written long after they died. I place far more value on the words between ordinary people, the charming curses enshrined on lead, the letters of complaint, the sexually explicit graffiti, than on histories of the emperors.
Imagine all we know of Obama comes from fragments of 4chan, or of Trump from the same source. That's how much diversity of view deep history sometimes gives us.
> Almost all of the writing about significant Romans is written long after they died.
In the case of Nero he was not loved by the élites of his times and the rumors about him started long before he died and became legends.
The senatorial and arostocratic casts didn't love Nero, as he often ruled in favour of the productive classes and the common people (the P in S.P.Q.R.)
Of course all the historians and the writers in general where part of the upper class, to be educated at the time you had to be part of the wealthy people, and almost all of them wrote anti-Nero propaganda.
The most famous of them all is the great fire of Rome when they depicted Nero burning the city while playing his lira, because he thought that Rome had spiraled towards decadence and wanted to burn it to the ground and bring back its former beauty.
That's what almost every ancient historical source says about it, in reality modern historians have discovered that it was probably accidental and they also found in the books of Tacito proof that he did actually tried to stop the fire, but whatever he did only reinforced the idea of his nastiness.
For example he demolished the buildings on the Esquilino hill to try'n stop the fire, but was seen as his thirst for more destruction, he paid for the removal of the debris and the burial of the victims, but was interpreted as looting.
Last but not least, people were seen starting new fires and were classified as Nero's agents, but in reality they were looters trying to take advantage of the situation and when asked answered that they were following the Emperor's orders to cover themselves up and were believed, it matched the propaganda.
There's a lot more like the rumors that he killed his wife kicking her belly while she was pregnant and many other false stories about Nero.
So Nero is one of those rare characters that suffered of bad publicity long before he died and became a legendary Villain for something he didn't do.
fun fact: we owe the name Colosseum to Nero. The giant statue that depicted him was in front of the Flavian amphitheatre.
Long time after Nero times, during the middle age, the statue was found and it was so colossal that people thought it was the Sun God and called it the Colossus and the amphitheater the Colosseum.
When the statue was destroyed the name stayed and it became the most iconic ancient monument in existence.
The roman analogy to 4chan is bathroom graffiti, not Tacitus. The modern analogy to Tacitus is not 4chan but, but today's establishment journalist or historian.
So this exhibition, this essay, and your comment are way more subversive then you suggest. To use bathroom graffiti as evidence against Tacitus is like using a 4chan post as evidence against something written by an establishment journalist or historian.
> The modern analogy to Tacitus is not 4chan but, but today's establishment journalist or historian
Eh. I wouldn't go that far; Tacitus, Dio et al were neither journalists nor historians in the modern sense. Their writings are very useful to modern historians (because it's not like there's that much available), but they were closer to a sort of historical gossip columnists than anything else, and there's a fair bit of scepticism about a lot of their wilder allegations.
I don’t know where this urge to whitewash Nero is coming from but it’s worth noting that the stories of child sacrifice in Carthage were widely considered propaganda until archeologists uncovered evidence of it. It’s impossible that any historical source avoids all bias, but incredibly cruel things happened in the past and it’s a mistake to discount it all just because the source shows bias. I hope 2000 years from now people don’t claim the Holocaust was just western propaganda from the victors of the war and make Hitler out to be a hero.
I don't think it's an urge to whitewash, really, as much as a general tendency in modern (post-19th century) history to not blindly accept accounts written after the fact, especially where the sources are known to be unreliable, but rather to try and figure out what happened.
Obviously Nero was a very nasty piece of work, but then most Roman emperors _were_. Nero's public image is essentially cartoonishly evil; it's probably not really justified.
Anyone read 'Quo Vadis' of Henryk Sienkiewicz (He won the Nobel in literature 1905)? I have read a lot of novels in my life till now, but Nero's carnage against Christians depicted in it remains one of the most gruesome things I have read about.
Yes, and the depiction of the fire of Rome is truly suffocating and terrifying. And the development of the protagonist’s conversion is very convincing. And also, more on topic, Nero is so dynamic. Seems like such a modern villain with so many believably awful traits.
Of course, but you can say this about any historical figure before the age of mass media. That's not a particularly insightful or novel criticism. What do we really know about Pericles, Alexander the Great, Tiberius? We have a handful of biographies that have been passed down, and you can accuse any of them of being propaganda.
> you can say this about any historical figure before the age of mass media
And after mass media! Just because we have an easier time disseminating information doesn't mean most of it isn't created with the intent to persuade the audience to believe things the author wants them to believe about the subject.
Yes, you have to sift through it, but the point is you get more than one or two primary texts, and so with a variety of witnesses you can make a stronger case. In the ancient world, it's not uncommon to have only a single text from a specific point of view and so there are always charges of propaganda to deal with.
Define "good enough sources." Both wrote their histories in a way that pushed their worldview, it's incredibly difficult not to. Similarly, Sienkiewicz was writing a largely pro-Christian novel, an accurate analysis of Nero was never their aim.
But, when you look at a lot of the later Roman leaders, they make Nero look like a saint. Rome had a VERY nasty and bloody period of leadership succession in its later centuries.
You weren’t entirely wrong; the application is named for the emperor, who was reviled for “burning” Rome. (Quotes for uncertainty around how literal that fire would’ve been.)
There was probably a large fire. As I understand, there was a conspiracy that Nero started the fire to clear land in the crowded residential areas to build a "palace"/equivalent structure. There really isn't much evidence to support this.
Though Nero did attempt to find a scapegoat for the fire.
Well, Tacitus was a fairly decent historian, and IIRC he says there was a fire, during Nero's reign - a fire big enough that Nero went looking for scapegoats to blame it on.
Yea it is all made up. Nero was a great guy..
Come on, really?
IMO Uday Hussein is a good contemporary example of the process at work here. Give a kid absolute power and they are going to evolve crazy tastes and behavior.
Suicide letters where he commanded people to commit suicide? [1] Tacitus says he killed his mother (who was pretty nasty in her own right). [2] Nero was pretty nasty.
All 3 of the accounts listed regarding Agrippina's death are subjects of the article in question and suspected of outright making things up. Your own link even puts forth the fact that all three accounts are unbelievable. I don't know the current consensus on all of that, but I know that the consensus is that most of the more outrageous things Suetonius had to say about the 12 Caesars was nonsense. I don't think it'd be all that surprising if Tacitus and Cassius Dio did similarly.
I haven't dug into it much, but isn't Tacitus also one of three sources about Caligula? Could it not be that a lot of the reputation of the Julio-Claudians was exaggerated well after nobody could or would defend them?
BTW. Some scholars claim that Seneca's writing had been part of clever crafting of his public image and written by ghost writers (slaves most likely). Real Seneca had been rather ruthless investment banker and politician in mode of the times.
> Tacitus says he killed his mother (who was pretty nasty in her own right).
Mentioned in the article; this was a trope that Roman historians (who weren't historians in the modern sense) routinely used about people they didn't like, and the accounts are inconsistent. Like, it's certainly _possible_ he did, but there isn't great evidence for it.
