We all know Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
we’re told that in countless accounts. It must be true. John Drinkwater, emeritus professor of Roman history at the University of Nottingham, thinks otherwise.
In his book, Nero: Emperor and Court, he makes the case that shortly after Nero’s death in A.D. 68 his record was unfairly besmirched by Flavian partisans in order to promote their own political aspirations.
Nero’s death ended the nearly one-hundred-year reign
of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. Drinkwater claims conterminous chroniclers, Tacitus and Suetonius, spun the facts of Nero’s life to disparage the well-regarded record of the Julio-Claudine Dynasty and to promote the Flavian family as most deserving
to replace the Julio-Claudian Dynasty.
It’s plausible. History is written by the winners.
Drinkwater’s appraisal doesn’t make Nero a nice guy.
It does make him not much worse than any other emperor.
The method used to spin history in Nero’s time was the same as it is now: Tell the truth, but put the emphasis on the parts you want remembered; push to marginal status the parts you don’t want remembered.
Nero didn’t start the fire. He was away vacationing
at a getaway in Antlum. When news of the conflagration reached him he rushed back to Rome and did his best to see the flames were put out. Failing at this he did what he could to help the survivors.
Then he wrote a song to commemorate the tragedy.
Big mistake. His critics jumped on this heartless, callous versifying while Rome was still smoking. What kind of a monster fiddles while Rome burns and the people suffer and die?
Wrong, technically and morally. Nero didn’t play the fiddle, or even the harp. He played the cithara, a stringed instrument that required serious musicianship. His verses were equally skillful. He spent most of his time as Emperor in pursuit of the Arts.
Nero intended his paean to the tragic fire as honoring those who suffered. Much the way Homer honored the conflict of Troy with the Iliad. Modesty had no place in his glorious regard for himself.
Statecraft was of little interest to Nero. He left most
of that sort of thing to a coterie of self-serving managers. Many of whom were responsible for outrages credited to Nero.
That said, Nero was as capable of casual cruelty as any other spoiled brat with absolute power. Tacitus and Suetonius made him out worse than he was.
He had plenty of blood on his hands without their help.
Despicable behavior needn’t be exaggerated.