Acting and Nero's Conception of The Principate

Acting and Nero's Conception of the Principate
Author(s): C. E. Manning
Source: Greece & Rome, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Oct., 1975), pp. 164-175
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/642717
Accessed: 25-07-2016 21:26 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome
This content downloaded from 204.78.0.252 on Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:26:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ACTING AND NERO'S CONCEPTION
OF THE PRINCIPATE
By C. E. MANNING
SUETONIUS tells us that Nero's dying words were 'Qualis artifex

pereo', and amongst English-speaking peoples he is generally
known as 'the man who fiddled while Rome burned'. Even if the
'famous last words' are legendary, there is a basis for the second story
in Suetonius' account that during the fire of 64 Nero sang 'the destruc-
tion of Troy' in his stage costume. Yet despite the picture of Nero the
performer which emerges from all our ancient sources, it is only in
comparatively recent times that historians have given serious considera-
tion to Nero's artistic pretensions. History it would seem is the propa-
ganda of the victors, and that most hurtful remark of Vindex, that he
was a bad lyre-player, has often been regarded as the appropriate
verdict upon Nero.'
Yet, as M. P. Charlesworth has shown, there is nothing more certain
than that Nero was completely serious about his art, and in particular
about his stage performances. Nothing was more obvious than that
when Nero competed with other actors, however well or badly he
performed, he would win the prize. The senate made this quite clear
by offering him first prize for song in the Quinquennial Games of 65,
before the competitions were held. And yet Nero was absolutely
scrupulous about the manner of his performance, and perhaps even
believed that he was competing on equal terms. For example at the
Quinquennial Games, Tacitus describes his performance thus: 'Nero
made his second entree as a musician. He scrupulously observed the
harpist's etiquette. When tuned he remained standing. To wipe away
perspiration he used nothing but the robe he was wearing. He allowed
no moisture to be visible from his mouth or nose. At the conclusion,
he awaited the verdict of the judges in assumed trepidation on bended
knee, and with a gesture of deference to the public.' Similar behaviour
characterized his trip to Greece.z
Whatever else we can conclude from these descriptions, they cer-
tainly show us a man seriously concerned about his artistic standards,
and anxious not to give the public anything less than the best. More-
over, Nero's interest in acting and music, though publicly displayed in
the latter part of his reign, had their origins in his adolescence. At the
very outset of his principate, he had sent for the lyre-player Terpnos
and after listening to him he gradually began to practise, omitting none
ACTING AND NERO'S PRINCIPATE 165
of those exercises which artists of that sort undertake for the purpose of
preserving or increasing their voices. Artists who have no more than
a dilettante interest do not, like Nero, lie on their backs while lead weights
press upon their chests, nor endure purges, nor institute a strict diet.
Suetonius further tells us that Nero had a voice best described by the
adjective 'fusca', and that among his favourite parts were 'Canace in
labour, Orestes the matricide, Oedipus blinded, and Hercules mad'.
Quintilian's description of the 'vox fusca' suggests that this was intelli-
gent selection, for such a voice was suited to emotional scenes, and in
particular for arousing pity.3
If then, as it seems, Nero regarded art, and in particular the stage, as
areas of vital importance, what questions does this raise for the historian ?
The quality of Nero's productions must surely be beyond his scope, for
there is so little evidence, and so much of it depends upon a subjective
judgement.4 Yet a question just as interesting is left. Did stage per-
formances have any place in Nero's conception of the role of the prin-
ceps? In unveiling his talents for all to see was Nero simply under the
sway of his own artistic bent, using the inestimable prestige of his
office to satisfy his personal idiosyncrasies, or was he pursuing some
definite policy in which his artistic talents were used for some political
or religious end ?
In a series of articles written in the 194os, the Danish scholar H. P.
L'Orange suggested that a central motive could be identified behind the
seemingly bizarre actions of Nero's later years. Nero, believed L'Orange,
wished to be regarded as the Sun-King, the earthly representative of the
Sun God: Helios, Apollo, Mithras or Ahoura Mazda, as he was variously
known. L'Orange's theories were based on a study of the famous
Domus Aurea which Nero built to replace the palace destroyed in the
fire of 64. This L'Orange believed to be a 'Sonnenpalast'. The
principal dining room of the palace was thus described by Suetonius:
'praecipua cenationum rotunda quae perpetuo diebus et noctibus vice
mundi circumageretur.' Now such a room bore a startling resemblance
to the throne room of the early seventh-century Sassanid king of Persia,
Khosro II. This circular vaulted hall was made to revolve by horses in
the basement, and on the vaulted dome were depicted sun, moon and
stars. The elevated throne thus made Khosro appear as brother of
moon and sun and friend of the stars. Other evidence gleaned from our
literary sources suggested to L'Orange that Nero may have wished to
appear in a similar role. Pliny the Elder tells us that on his visit to
Rome Tiridates initiated Nero into the banquets of the Magi. Could his
negotiations with Parthian royalty have made the princeps familiar with
those architectural traditions which also influenced future dynasties in
Parthia? Lucan in his eulogy of Nero at the beginning of the De Bello
166 ACTING AND NERO'S PRINCIPATE
Civili suggests that one form Nero's apotheosis might take is that of
a Sun God. The colossal statue, almost certainly modelled on the
Colossus of Rhodes, which dominated the entrance to the palace
gives further support to such an interpretation by the radiate crown
which topped it, while the arrangement of Nero's curls in the portraits
on his coinage from the year 64 were additional pointers to his interest in
solar apotheosis.s
If it were possible to accept L'Orange's thesis, we could view Nero's
stage performances as part of this new emphasis on his position as
Sun King, the semi-divine friend of Apollo. For it is Apollo whom
Tacitus associates with Nero's earliest urges to perform as charioteer
and actor. 'Nero had a long-standing desire to drive a four-horsed
chariot in races, and a no less disgraceful urge to sing to the lyre on stage.
He recalled that charioteering was a regal activity, indulged in by leaders
of old, praised by poets and performed to honour the gods. And indeed,
song was sacred to Apollo, and that powerful and prescient divinity
stood in singer's costume not only in Greek cities, but also in Roman
temples' (Ann. xiv. 4). The great virtue of L'Orange's case was that
it gave theological coherence to a series of seemingly unrelated and
inexplicable actions on Nero's part. His behaviour could be considered
as that of a convert to Mithraism, endeavouring to change a constitu-
tional principate into a theocratic monarchy.
Unfortunately, a number of subsequent contributions to Neronian
studies have made it impossible to accept this view of Nero's later years.
Dr. Axel Boathius has pointed out that Suetonius' curt description does
not provide evidence that the cenatio was a throne room nor that its
dome was star-spangled. Moreover what shocked contemporaries
about the Domus Aurea was not the architectural features of the build-
ings so much as the area taken up by its grounds. That is, the centre of
Rome was occupied by a country villa in the style of a pseudo-rural
extravaganza. The new palace was criticized for its luxury and extrava-
gance but nowhere for its ideological pretensions. As for the cenatio,
it was one of a number of rooms with experimental ceilings, which may
have been the latest craze in fashionable society.
In addition to these criticisms, M. P. Charlesworth has urged that the
existence of a seventh-century Persian palace is not evidence that the
Domus Aurea followed a plan derived from Parthia. If Dio's statement
that Nero allowed Tiridates to take artisans with him from Rome to
Armenia is to be believed it is an equally plausible theory that the
Parthians learnt from Nero the architectural techniques which made
revolving ceilings possible, and that both this cenatio and the colossus
ring true to the characterization of Nero as a man fascinated by mechani-
cal marvels. Moreover Dr. Toynbee has shown that the portraits of
Nero, as they appear on the coins of 64, may have been influenced by
the way in which charioteers or actors wore their hair, and almost
certainly had no association with claims to divinity. Lucan's eulogy
makes it clear that Nero is not to be a god until he has left the world of
men, and recent interpretations have suggested that the poet is attempt-
ing to persuade the emperor to remain within the traditional forms of
the principate established by Augustus.6
Finally we may notice that although Nero showed some interest in
the more bizarre cults, our sources show him highly sceptical in matters
of religion. Suetonius says, 'He utterly despised all cults, with the sole
exception of the Syrian goddess, and he even acquired such a contempt
for her that he made water against her statue after he became enamoured
of another superstition, to which alone he clung resolutely. For he had
received as a gift from some unknown man of the people as a protection
against plots the image of a little girl, and since a conspiracy at once
came to light he continued to venerate it as a most powerful divinity,
and to offer three sacrifices to it daily, encouraging the belief that
through its communication he had knowledge of the future.' Such
a description is hardly that of a man of profound religious feeling,
changing the pattern of his people's life in accordance with some
theological conception of the universe.7
In view of these arguments, we can no longer look for any religious
motivation either for Nero's stage appearances, or for his appeal to
the example of Apollo. A far more likely explanation of such an appeal
is the precedent of Augustus. Apollo was one of the divinities Augustus
most favoured, the god under whose auspices he had defeated the forces
of the East at Actium. Nero's traditionalist opponents might find it
difficult to attack as unworthy an activity of a god who had played such
an important part in the foundation myth of the principate.
I do not, however, take the view that Nero's stage performances were
entirely devoid of political meaning. The thesis I now wish to put
forward is that Nero's stage performances were a deliberate cultivation
of the plebs both of Rome and the Empire, and that by seeking popu-
larity among them, Nero, if he had lived longer, would have effected
a considerable change in the political relationships between the princeps
and various groups in the empire he governed. A suitable starting-point
for our exploration is the remark of Suetonius, 'Maxime autem populari-
tate efferebatur, omnium aemulus qui quoquo modo animum vulgi
moverent' (Nero 53)-
It is my contention that to seek a popular basis for the principate was
a perfectly natural and logical policy for Nero to pursue, and one in
which he was not without success. The two Claudian principes,
representatives of a long established aristocratic line noted for its
conservatism, had both done their best to maintain the dignity of the
senate. But they had failed, for one absolutely basic reason. Princeps
and senate could not agree upon the role of the senate within the
respublica. For while the senate was still tempted to regard itself as the
ultimate source of legality at Rome, the fountainhead from which
executive power secured its authority, Claudius regarded it as a body
useful for enacting his policies and as a source of administrators and
executives who would act as agents for the princeps wherever he could
not personally oversee important matters. Seneca's Apocolocyntosis
attacks Claudius precisely at those points where, despite his protesta-
tions of good will to the senate, he seems to be attacking senatorial
interests. There are repeated references to his passion for dispensing
justice personally, a function presumably exercised by senatorial magis-
trates before his principate, and to his execution of those senators who
were rash enough to antagonize him.8
Seneca's hopeful characterization of Nero in the same work should
lead us to expect a rather different mode of rule; and Tacitus tells us
that Nero won praise because he did not, like his adoptive father, take
the whole administration of government into his own hands.
Outlining his future policy he renounced everything that had occasioned
recent unpopularity. 'I will not judge every case myself' he said, 'and give
too free rein to the influence of a few individuals by hearing prosecutors and
defendants behind closed doors. From my house bribery and favouritism will
be excluded. I will keep personal and state affairs separate. The senate is to
preserve its ancient functions. By applying to the consuls, Italy and the
senatorial provinces may have access to it. I myself will look after the armies
under my control. . . .' Moreover these promises were implemented. The
senate decided many matters.9
It is quite true that the new judicial practices and the increased im-
portance of the senate were the result of Nero's own lack of interest in
the everyday details of government activity, and that even so the real
power of the senate was less than it appeared. Nevertheless, for a number
of years the senate was free to make decisions in matters where the class
feeling of senators ran high.I' The outward vestiges of senatorial
authority remained and in many matters Nero was no more than a
shadowy figure in the background. Perhaps the amazing thing about
Nero's reign is that for many years he and the senate could work
together, despite the many bizarre activities that were an intrinsic part
of his court. It is my contention that the explanation of this lies in the
fact that Nero played very little overt part in the governmental proce-
dures of his day. Under Claudius the imperial authority was like 'Big
Brother', an omnipresent and oppressive burden. Under Nero it had
effaced itself. In other words, unusual as it was for a Roman princeps
to have very little interest in government, it had worked. Nero's neglect
had enabled the senate to take a greater part in government, its preroga-
tives and its pretensions untouched by the constant activity in which an
over-zealous princeps might have exercised himself.
Yet Nero desired popularity, to be assured of the affection of people
around him. He also longed to leave behind an immortal name, a
record of great deeds. How was he to achieve this ? He had no great
interest in politics, and if he attempted to be more active in that sphere,
he might well face the same sort of obstruction and resentment that
had marred the reputation of the Claudian principes. It was here that
Nero's interest in the stage and in the giving of magnificent spectacula
offered him a way out. It was a way for Nero to fulfil himself by activi-
ties that were to his taste, and to satisfy his longing for popularity and
immortality by becoming the idol of the populace. Both Juvenal and
Fronto attest the importance of shows in determining the reputation of
the princeps amongst ordinary people both in Rome and the provinces,
while Professor Yavetz in his important study Plebs and Princeps has
made it clear that the populus wanted a ruler characterized by a levitas
popularis which showed itself when a princeps not only arranged for the
people's enjoyment and entertainment, but also shared in them with
obvious pleasure. A more extreme manifestation of this levitas occurred
when the entertainment included the humiliation of the nobiles, the
people who made a particular point of their gravitas or dignitas. Nero's
own understanding of the record of previous Julio-Claudians could well
have led him to similar conclusions. At the conclusion of the civil war
Julius Caesar gave varied lavish entertainments. By compelling a man
of praetorian family, Furius Leptinus, and a former senator, Quintus
Calpenus, to fight in the arena, he had set a precedent for the humilia-
tion of members of the upper classes. Yet when he was killed in 44, the
people showed conspicuous lack of enthusiasm for the liberators-as
Yavetz says, 'seeing in him a real friend of the people'. Nero could also
note the extreme popularity of Gaius at the beginning of his principate,
a period marked by lavish shows which the princeps obviously enjoyed.
On the other hand the dour Tiberius, who made his distaste for popular
entertainments abundantly clear, found that even during his lifetime the
popularity of Germanicus and his family far outstripped his own and
that of his lineal descendants." It is more than plausible to suggest that
Nero's productions and his stage appearances were the result of a
certain amount of political calculation. Moreover there is every indica-
tion that Nero's calculations were realistic and that he won the genuine
popularity he desired. His first ventures with chariots in 59 were
rapturously received. Tacitus, commenting on these, writes 'For such
is a crowd, eager for entertainment, and delighted if the emperor shares
their tastes.' Tacitus expressly states that it was this obvious approval
which led Nero to introduce the Youth Games of that year, and to
oblige members of noble families to appear on stage with him. Indeed,
there is strong evidence that among ordinary people the enthusiasm
which greeted Nero's appearances on stage did not diminish as time
passed. His reception at the second Quinquennial Games in 65 was also
good. 'The public at least, used to applauding even the poses of pro-
fessional actors, cheered in measured rhythmical cadences. They
sounded delighted. Indeed, since the national disgrace meant nothing
to them, perhaps they were.'12
Equally suggestive is Nero's continued popularity amongst the
urban plebs, even after his death. The actions of the emperors Otho
and Vitellius, as well as the evidence even of hostile sources, bears
witness to this popularity. Otho, for example, allowed Nero's busts to
be set up again, and reinstated his procurators and freedmen in their
former posts. In addition he allowed himself to be hailed as Nero,
may have used the formal appellation Nero Otho, and even planned to
marry Nero's widow Statilia Messalina. Vitellius also felt the need to
pay respect to Nero's memory. Suetonius writes:
And to leave no one in doubt what model he chose for the government of
the state, he made funerary offerings to Nero in the middle of the Campus
Martius, attended by a great throng of public priests, and when at the
accompanying banquet a flute-player was received with applause he openly
urged him 'to render something from the Master's book as well'; and when he
began the songs of Nero, Vitellius was the first to applaud him.~3
Such actions in the confused situation of 69, when public opinion

was a matter of considerable significance, are surely not indicative of the
personal affection of Otho and Vitellius for the last scion of the Julio-
Claudian line, but rather of their concern to turn to their own advantage
the popular affection for him that still remained.
Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius, although both are eager to minimize
the importance of this affection for the dead Nero, can deny its existence.
Suetonius therefore suggests that its scope was of little significance.
'Nero's death was publicly received with such joy that the plebs ran
about in freedmen's caps throughout the city. And nevertheless, there
were not lacking people who for a long time adorned his tomb with
spring and summer flowers, and now brought his statues on to the
rostra.' Tacitus, however, more anxious to diminish the moral impor-
tance of this affection than its diffusion, draws the contrast in somewhat
different terms. 'The wholesome part of the people, attached to great
houses, and the clients and freedmen of those executed or exiled under
Nero were raised to hope; the dregs of the city, accustomed to the circus
and the theatre, and at the same time the worst of the slaves, and those
who, after squandering their own property gained their sustenance from
Nero's disgraceful activity, were sorrowful and eager for rumours.'"4
Whether or not those who mourned Nero, if they comprised all except
those described amongst 'the wholesome part of the people', were
'the dregs', they were certainly the majority of Rome's population. It
would thus appear that Nero's shows and his own participation in
them were both in line with his desire for popularity and successful in
achieving it. It was not without significance that the first pseudo-Nero
made his appearance with a lyre.
It is not, I think, going too far to say that future emperors learnt the
lesson of Nero's popularity, not only by their concern for popular
entertainment but by displaying a certain amount of levitas. For when
the co-operation of ordinary soldiers was required it was not only the
libertine Lucius Verus but also the optimusprinceps Trajan who ensured
that actors were brought from Rome to Syria to amuse the troops.
Even if this drew criticism from more conservative circles amongst the
Roman senate, it could be defended by such a sober figure as Fronto.
Indeed the generalization which he makes in doing so is not without
interest for the whole subject.
It seems to be one of the highest principles of political science that the

emperor is not unconcerned about actors or other performers on the stage or
in the circus, since he knows that the Roman people are kept loyal by two
things, corn-doles and shows; that a man's rule is approved no less because of
his entertainments than because of his serious policies; that there is greater
loss if serious matters are neglected, greater resentment if entertainments fail
to receive proper attention.'s
Moreover, it can be plausibly argued that it was Marcus Aurelius'

understanding of the political importance of levitas which led him to
make Verus his co-ruler. It does not appear that his predecessor
Antoninus Pius had obliged him to do so. How then do we explain that
Marcus Aurelius, the austere, aloof philosopher, on whose lips was
always found the Platonic sentiment that cities flourished if philosophers
ruled or if the rulers philosophized, should make co-ruler a dedicated
libertine to whom the path of pleasure was better known than that of
virtue? That Verus was of this ilk is I think certain, for whilst we may
suspect that the writer of the Augustan History overdraws Verus' faults,
we must be equally struck by a letter of Verus to Fronto in which he
discusses the merits of the pantomimus Pylades, his master of the same
name, and another actor Apolaustus. Dio, it is true, suggests that with
a Parthian campaign in prospect the younger Verus was more suited
than Marcus for warlike enterprises. Yet after Verus' death, Marcus
felt able to take command of fighting in the German provinces. I would
suggest that for Marcus, Verus' quality of levitas must have had its
attractions. For certainly Marcus' gravitas provoked hostility among
some sections of the populus. His habit of reading or writing when
attending the circus gave rise to jokes that may not have been too
friendly, and at one time even Fronto had found him unreasonably
dour. To such an austere character, the levitas of Verus provided an
admirable counterbalance, and while Marcus busied himself with the
unremitting routine of imperial administration, Verus was admirably
suited to please the people and to ensure that their lack of enthusiasm
for Marcus did not lead them to create difficulties for him.'6
But, despite becoming the idol of the mob, and despite the lesson
other emperors were able to learn from this, Nero was still removed.
How do we explain the enforced suicide of a princeps who still held the
affection of the populus ?
According to Suetonius there was a food shortage in 68, accompanied
by a sharp rise in the price of corn, and this caused a marked decline
in the emperor's popularity. Both Dio and Suetonius talk of popular
rejoicing at his misfortunes. While I do not deny the food shortage,
I have argued earlier in the article that it is easy to overestimate the
degree of feeling against Nero. Moreover it is quite certain that the
initiative for Nero's removal came from commanders of certain pro-
vincial armies, in particular Vindex and Galba, though the part of
Verginius Rufus is far from clear. It was this stirring in the provinces
which emboldened the senate to decree Nero's removal, while the
decisive factor was surely the concurrence of the praetorian guard with
these plans. There is no evidence that the people as such took an
important part in events. The most one can argue is that because of
a temporary lull in Nero's popularity with the urban plebs, there was
no rising on his behalf. But in any case, what power had the people in
the face of the praetorian guard ?7
One might rather argue that Nero paid the penalty because what ap-
pealed to the proletariat did not always appeal to other orders, especially
in matters connected with the theatre and entertainment. It is of course
true that all classes went to the theatre at Rome. Otherwise there would
have been no need for such measures as the lex Roscia of 67 B.c. by
which the first fourteen rows in the theatre were reserved for those of
equestrian status. But amongst the political classes at Rome there was
always a certain disdain for the amusements of ordinary people. If
Tiberius' dislike of spectacula could be regarded as somewhat un-
typical, since he was the descendant of an aristocratic house whose
origins went back to the founding of the republic, the novus homo,
Pliny, is found to be no better disposed to circuses and those who are
carried away by their enthusiasm for them. Even Seneca, who himself
wrote plays, expressed his contempt for the stage devices which were
used to capture the attention of the unthinking members of the audience.xs
Moreover the upper classes displayed an antipathy to those who
performed on stage even greater than that shown towards the produc-
tions. For the performers were often of foreign or servile origin. While
popular voting still counted, freeborn men appearing on stage were
disenfranchised and debarred from military service. Livy records that
some exception was made in the case of the Atellan farce, but profes-
sional actors were banned from this type of performance. On rare
occasions, a Roman aristocrat might condescend to grace a local festival,
mixing, of course, only with amateur performers. Even the grave
Thrasea appeared in a tragedy at Patavium during a festival which
occurred only every thirty years. On the other hand, to appear along
with professional actors and to compete with them was to sink to the
depths of degradation. What made it worse for the nobles of Nero's
day was not just that Caesar, the princeps, drawn from their own
social spectrum, participated, but that he induced and even compelled
men of his own order to share his debasement. Nero's stage perfor-
mances may have been applauded by the ordinary people of Rome, but
they were bound to alienate the equestrian and senatorial orders.'9
This need not have been disastrous. The senators on their own could
achieve little, and the Pisonian conspiracy was easily suppressed. But
Nero also lacked the support of his troops. The generals in the provinces
were drawn from the senatorial order, and while the lower ranks did not
always share the politics of their commanding officers, Nero had neither
personally taken part in any campaigns, nor by any other measures won
their loyalty. The execution of Corbulo during Nero's tour of Greece
probably added to the armies' suspicion of him.20 Nero fell in 68
because he could rally no armies to his defence; he had found it im-
possible to rule with the support of the people alone.
This lesson, too, was one which was not lost on future principes.
Though he was considerably older, there was much about Hadrian that
was reminiscent of Nero. There was the same philhellenism, the same
lavish generogity in giving shows and building theatres, the same interest
in unorthodox innovation in architecture and engineering. Like Nero,
his literary studies and in particular his poetic ambitions were of an
extent and type that the senate considered unsuitable for a Roman
princeps. Hadrian also shared Nero's common touch. An anecdote of
Dio shows him responding readily to a woman petitioner who won his
attention while he was journeying, while the writer of the Augustan
History portrays him as willing to converse and even use the baths with
the most humble of his subjects. Hadrian was both an artist and plebis
N
iactantissimus auctor. Like Nero, Hadrian's relationships with the senate
were strained, so strained that upon his death they were reluctant to
deify him. Yet despite the senate's hostility, his tenure of the principate
was never seriously threatened and he died in his bed. For Hadrian
realized how important the support of the soldiery was and he
sedulously cultivated it. It is no accident that the Augustan History
mentions his skill with arms and his knowledge of military affairs in the
same paragraph as his literary and artistic talents. For his concern for
the soldiery was the essential safeguard for his other aspirations.
Hadrian succeeded therefore while Nero was overthrown.2Z
The purpose of this paper has not been to defend Nero; no one would
suggest that his principate provided the conditions under which those of
us used to twentieth-century democracy would like to live. Neverthe-
less the historian of modern days cannot ignore what happened simply
because it appears bizarre. For Nero's activities had political repercus-
sions, repercussions significant not only for his own principate but also
for those of future rulers of Rome.
NOTES
i. Suet. Nero 49. I; 38. 2; 41. I.

2. M. P. Charlesworth, 'Nero: Some Aspects', JRS xl (1950), 69-76; Tac. Ann.
xvi. 4; for Nero in Greece, see Suet. Nero 23. 2-24. I, and Dio Cass. lxiii. 9. I-z.
3. Suet. Nero 2o-I; Quint. Inst. Or. xi. 3. 170-1.
4. Though Nero's artistic merits have not lacked defenders among modern scholars;.
cf. Charlesworth, op. cit. 69-70; J. Brisset, Les Iddes politiques de Lucain (Paris,
1964), 12.
5. H. P. L'Orange, 'Domus Aurea: der Sonnenpalast', Symb. Osloenses (1942),
68 ff.; Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture (Oslo, 1947), 57-60. The ancient evidence
includes Suet. Nero 31. 2; Pliny NH 30. 17; Lucan BC i. 45.
6. A. Boithius, 'Nero's Golden House', Eranos xliv (I946), 442-59; Tac. Ann. xv.
42; Suet. Nero 31. For the fashion of elaborate ceilings, see Petr. Sat. 60o; Charles-
worth, op. cit. 71-2; J. M. C. Toynbee, review of Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture
in JRS xxxviii (1948), 160-3. For Lucan's eulogy, see Brisset, op. cit. 196-20o.
7. Suet. Nero 56; also G. Charles-Picard, Augustus and Nero (New York, 1965),
95-10o8.
8. Sen. Apoc. 7; I 1-14; A. Momigliano, Claudius: the Emperor and his Achievement
(Oxford, 1934), 39-53.
9. Tac. Ann. xiii. 4; see also Sen. Apoc. 4.
Io. Nero's ignorance of the details of administration is illustrated by his attitude to
the vectigalia (Tac. Ann. xiii. 50). The senate's tightening and enforcement of the
senatus consultum Silianum (Tac. Ann. xiii. 32; xiv. 42-5) show its new-found freedom.
See also B. H. Warmington, Nero: Reality and Legend (London, 1969), 34-6, 39-42.
ii. Juv. x. 81; Fronto Princ. Hist. 17; Suet. Jul. 39; Calig. 11, 14, 18; Tac. Ann. iv.
12. See also Z. Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps (Oxford, 1969), esp. 62-7, o103-29.
12. Tac. Ann. xiv. 14-15; xvi. 4. Nero's return from the Greek contests in 67 was
almost certainly designed to compensate the people for his absence, and to remove
any unpopularity it might have caused (Dio Cass. lxii. 20-21. I).
13. Suet. Otho 7; io; Vit. 11 .
14. Suet. Nero 57; Tac. Hist. i. 4.
15. Fronto Princ. Hist. I7.
16. For Verus' levitas, see Fronto ad Ver. Imp. I. 2; and for specific comparisons of
Verus and Nero, Script. Hist. Aug. Verus 4. 6; Io. 8. For Verus' military qualities, see
Dio Cass. lxxi. I. 3; for Marcus' campaigns, Dio Cass. lxxii passim; and for his dour-
ness and unpopularity, Script. Hist. Aug. Marc. Ant. 15. I; 23. 6; Fronto ad Marc.
Caes. iv. 2. 3.
17. For Nero's fall, see Suet. Nero 40-9; Dio Cass. lxiii, xxii. I I-xxix. 2. For the
publica fames see Suet. Nero 45; also K. R. Bradley, 'A Publica Fames in A.D. 68',
AJP xciii (1972).
I8. On the lex Roscia see Livy Epit. 99; Juv. iii. 153-9. For Tiberius' attitude see
Tac. Ann. i. 54, 76; and Yavetz, op. cit. I08-9. See also Pliny Ep. ix. 6; Sen. Ep. AMor.
88. 22.
19. Livy vii. 2; Tac. Ann. xvi. 21; Dio Cass. lxii. 26. On the social status of actors,
see W. Beare, The Roman Stage (London, 1950), 166-7.
20. For Corbulo's death, see Dio Cass. lxiii. 17. 5-6; for the propaganda which
Nero's behaviour gave to potential opponents in military contexts, ibid. 22. 5-23.
21. Dio Cass. lxix. 3. 1-3; 9-1o. I; 23. 3; Script. Hist. Aug. Hadrian 14. 8-11;
17. 5 and 8; 20. I; 21. 9.

Acting and Nero's Conception of The Principate

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Acting and Nero's Conception of The Principate

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Acting and Nero's Conception of the Principate

SUETONIUS tells us that Nero's dying words were 'Qualis artifex

Such actions in the confused situation of 69, when public opinion

It seems to be one of the highest principles of political science that the

Moreover, it can be plausibly argued that it was Marcus Aurelius'

i. Suet. Nero 49. I; 38. 2; 41. I.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi