Nero’s Personality

The Good: 

            What good character traits can we find in a man who has been so maligned by history for so long? Let us just say that pickings are slim. It has come to a sad state of affairs when one of the best things one can say about a man’s character, is that there is no hard evidence for him having sex with his mother, however that is what over a thousand years of abuse does to a man’s character (if it was actually any different when he was alive). At the very least it can be said that he seemed to show true generosity towards his citizens in times of strife. Of course the cynical would say this was to curry favour with the commoners however I doubt they cared too much when they were starving and/or their houses were on fire. Speaking of the fire, with the evidence currently on hand it seems exceedingly unlikely that Nero was the one who started it; certainly the idiom ‘fiddled while Rome burned’ is a far more recent invention, as his magnificent benevolence Mr. Stephen Fry pointed out, the fiddle wouldn’t be invented for another 1500 years, and how can mere mortals such as us doubt the word of such a pillar of light entertainment. The unfortunate fact of the matter was that then combination of tall buildings, narrow streets and careless residents made fires both common and very fast-spreading; Rome had in fact suffered another large fire under the reign of Tiberius only a few decades before and even Tacitus, one of Nero’s harshest critics, admits that reports are conflicted and Nero’s culpability, questionable. Finally although it is true that he ordered the murder of his own mother on fraudulent treason charges, he did at least feel guilty about it afterwards:  

“He frequently affirmed that he was haunted by his mother’s ghost, and persecuted with the whips and burning torches of the Furies. Nay, he attempted by magical rites to bring up her ghost from below, and soften her rage against him. When he was in Greece, he dared not attend the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries”

            At the Eleusinian mysteries he would have had to reveal his worst secret for the initiation ceremony, hence why he feared attending so much; this could also be why Athens is never mentioned in his travels throughout Greece – he feared it due to its association with the furies in the Oresteia by Aeschylus which, as an aspiring actor, he would surely have knowledge of. Summarising these ‘good’ points makes for a depressing read: he probably didn’t commit incest with his mother; he felt bad when he killed her; he was sometimes kind to his subjects and he probably didn’t burn down their city. 

The Bad: 

            Nero did not handle crises well: throughout his biographies there are examples of him breaking down in a panic whenever he felt threatened. The first instance of this came early in his reign while his mother still held some small influence. One of her enemies Junia Silana, along with Nero’s aunt Domitia Lepida brought falsified accusation of treason against her claiming that she would ally with Rubellius Platus (who was descended from Augustus; sister Octavia) to overthrow the emperor. Due to the almost complete lack of evidence for the prosecution Agrippina won the case, however when she was first accused Nero is said to have flown into a panic and demanded that both his mother and Rubellius be seized and executed at once; luckily Burrus managed to calm him down and listen to reason. A few years later and Nero finds himself in almost the exact same situation; after his first failed assassination attempt Tacitus reports that: “Half-dead with fear, he insisted that she might arrive at any moment: ‘She may arm her slaves!’”, ignoring the absurdity of the idea of Agrippina storming the praetorian guard with a mob of armed slaves. The fact that Nero panics once is understandable, however to panic again in such a similar situation indicates a complete disregard for learning from past experience. Indeed it would be this predisposition for panicking that would eventually cost him his life as the armies of Galba closed in, and he had run out of advisors to handle the situation for him. 

            In possibly one of the most damaging moves to his image, Nero turned up late to the Great Fire of 64. In fact according to some authors Nero: “only returned to the city when the fire was approaching the mansion he had built”, although some modern scholars think this may be a fabrication by later authors. Regardless he did not arrived early enough, or possibly did not help enough to quash rumours that he himself was the one which started the fire, forcing him to accuse the Christians. Accusation became persecution and this persecution became one of the defining factors in Nero’s later demonization by the religion. 

            One of the final allegations levied against Nero is that he showed favouritism toward some of his freedmen, and allowing them too much power. After Boadicea’s rebellion had been put down there was an inquiry into it and instead of a high ranking senator or official, Nero instead sent his freedman Polyclitus (who would later help rule Rome while Nero was in Greece). Polyclitus came to the conclusion that the current governor Suetonius Paullinus was in the wrong for his invasion of Wales with most of Rome’s troops, leaving the east of Britain undermanned and easy pickings for Boadicea’s armies. However much outrage it caused back at home, Polyclitus’ judgement, and his later decision to replace the governor with Petronius Turpilianus, proved to be a wise one: there was no more British trouble in Nero’s reign and Turpilianus was to be a valuable ally to the emperor, even being judged worthy of a triumph in 65 for his part in unmasking the Pisonian conspiracy. 

The Insane: 

            In the final year of his rule Nero started committing various seemingly whimsical acts of violence. During the last few weeks in particular his mood seemed to swing from an almost incomprehensible confidence in his own safety against Galba’s rebellion (possibly he was convinced of the presence of popular support due to having been worshipped so much while in Greece), to paralysing terror and despair. In 67 Nero was planning a military campaign, either against the Albanians or the Ethiopians (sources are divided, some mention them both but it seems impossible to link the two geographically) and it was just before this that he summoned on of his most skilled generals – Corbulo – to meet him in Greece. It must have been surprising for Corbulo to realise that he was not there for an award, but to defend himself against accusations of treason, before being executed. This alone would have been strange; however Nero then repeated this with the treatment of the Scribonius brothers – the commanders of the Rhine army. Killing three of your most proven generals just before you embark on a new campaign is an exceedingly illogical thing to do, however it seems that at times like this Nero preferred to rely on commanders like Vespasian, whose (relatively) low birth meant, from Nero’s perspective, less chance of imperialistic ambitions (ironically). This however pales to a mild eccentricity when compared to the last few weeks of his rule. Malitz puts it best: “Some of the reports on the last weeks of Nero’s reign are so lurid as to allow doubts as to their credibility”. The seemingly insane actions Nero took, none of which helped the situation and several of which weren’t relevant at all are chronicled in almost gleeful detail by the later biographers of his life. For example recorded by Cassius Dio:  

“One night he suddenly summoned in haste the foremost senators and knights, as if to make some communication to them regarding the political situation, and then said to them (I quote his exact words): "I have discovered a way by which the water-organ will produce louder and more musical tones." In such jests did he indulge even at this crisis.”

            Other reports of him levying a new tax which could only be paid in freshly minted gold or silver coins are similarly bizarre. If these actions took place it is almost certain that this would alienate any other powerful friends which Nero had left – hastening his defeat. In any case he clearly either underwent some sort of mental breakdown due to panic at the lack of anyone to advise him on the situation, or some chroniclers have been wildly exaggerating his actions. 

            However Nero’s bouts of seemingly mad behaviour are not confined to his final weeks: in 65AD a plot to depose Nero was uncovered and his reaction was extreme to say the least, involving the capture and execution of several people who were extremely unlikely to have been a part of the plot, but who were mentioned in some vaguely connected manner, Nero’s old advisor Seneca being among them. Here we see what happens when Nero panics with less able advisors around to deal with it and it is all too easy to see how this disposition to panic might, if left unchecked, transition into bouts of insanity. 

Nero the Artist: 

            Biographers love to mock Nero’s singing, his playing of the lyre and his acting talents however was he really as bad as they claim? Were all his accolades and awards simply given to him by sycophants, or bought by the Imperial treasury? Or is there evidence that Nero could have actually been as skilled as he claimed to be? We can see examples of Nero’s talents at all stages of his life: very early in 47, when he was only about 10, Nero acted out the battle of Troy with some other youths at some secular games hosted by Claudius. It is reported that here he received louder applause than the Emperor’s own son Britannicus so this does at least indicate some natural talent at the profession. During the middle of his life Suetonius explicitly defends Nero from the accusations of plagiarism most notably levelled by Tacitus: “nor did he, as some think, publish those [poems] of other writers as his own”. Suetonius claimed to have some notebooks filled with Nero’s own poetry and it, according to him, showed the hallmarks of being composed, rather than transcribed or copied. At the far end of the timeline, after his death, the numerous ‘False Neroes’ which popped up with alarming frequency, especially in the east, had to have some form of musical or acting talent to be seen as credible. 

            However the most promising piece of evidence found for Nero’s artistic abilities is that he practised them a lot. The historians may moan that Nero spent all his time playing the lyre or practising his singing, however it is exactly this that implies he would be good at them; after all the best way to become proficient at a particular craft is to practise it and if he wasn’t busy ruling – instead letting his advisors do most of the legwork – then we can assume a certain level of proficiency. It would be shockingly unrealistic to assume that all of the 1,808 prizes he is said to have won in Greece were his by right, some such as the famed incident where he crashed his chariot yet still received first place have clearly been awarded to curry favour with the emperor or to ensure a generous donation, however simply because he did not win ‘all’ of his trophies fairly does not mean that he did not win ‘some’ of his trophies fairly. Both his constant practice, his varied repertoire of skills, and what seems to be a genuine love of performing arts all combine to make it quite likely that he was a competent performer at the least. 

            To summarise Nero’s personality traits: many of the more corrupt and depraved actions attributed to Nero by his biographers are likely false; furthermore it is probable that his artistic talents did not survive on sycophancy alone. Nero was far from a perfect human being, his fixation with the performing arts lead to an over reliance on his advisors to essentially rule in his stead. This – combined with his inability (or refusal) to confront his own weakness of panicking when things did not go his way – ultimately lead to his death in 68. Finally Nero showed very little remorse for having people close to him put to death, not even his own tutor Seneca, and he was almost single-handedly responsible for wiping out the Augustinian line. Even after killing his own mother he did not show sorrow or remorse but instead only fear of divine retribution. He was not, I would conclude, a pleasant human being. However neither was he the monster history has painted him as, furthermore being a pleasant human being is not always one of the hallmarks of a great or just ruler; that trait should, and will, be taken on its own merits.