Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. Obama slept while Americans died in Benghazi.
Catchy political phrases, but is the former really accurate?
Emperor Claudius never intended his stepson to become head of state. Nero was a narcissistic exhibitionist who persecuted Christians and longed for the admiration of his people. But would he really commit arson on such a grand scale?
Historians are still debating over the issue because historians back then were debating the issue.
Studying "contemporary" Roman sources is a tricky business. In ancient Rome, particularly in the time of the Emperors, there was no such thing as a free press. Most historians waited decades before writing their "accounts" of what happened in a person's life, and not just because they needed time to collect information. When Roman emperors became equated with gods, speaking against them could mean death.
Therefore, it was safer to criticize a particular ruler long after he was dead. For this period, 64 AD, three historians present their cases: Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Tacitus. The first two weren't born yet and the latter was only a child when it happened. All three contradict one another concerning some detail. Suetonius and Dio blame Nero for the incident while Tacitus claims he wasn't even in the city.
The legendary rumors began after the fire. Nero purchased most of the ruined land for rock-bottom prices and then built a magnificent living space for himself known as the Golden House. However, the fire started almost a mile away from where the House would eventually sit. Tacitus records that Christians were made the official scapegoat, but the people suspected Nero to be responsible.
Did he play the fiddle? No. Nothing related to the fiddle existed in the First Century. If he played anything, it would have been a lyre.
The problem with so-called contemporary Roman sources is that they were often used to vent frustrations rather than produce solid academic works. Hence, many of the accusations and scandals brought against the former emperor, even in extreme cases like Caligula, turned out to be false or greatly exaggerated.
The great fire of 64 wasn't the first in Roman history, and it certainly wouldn't be the last. Yet, Nero was saddled with the reputation of being the leader who'd burn his own city to ashes. Was it the truth or partisan politics?
The Emperor couldn't be reached for comment.
