Nero’s Relationship with the State

The Senate: 

            This chapter will deal with the relationships Nero had with various members of the Roman Empire, as well as how he kept his rule secure. The Senate were befriended at the very start of Nero’s reign; Seneca drafted a speech for Nero to read which would win them over to his cause. Nero spoke of his intention to follow good advice and follow the model set by Augustus: not a new intention of course however Nero kept to it surprisingly well during his earlier years. He also spoke more specifically about addressing some of the complaints about Claudius’ previous administration, for example he promised that members of the freedman class would no longer be able to take on ministerial positions. He also allowed the senators certain inexpensive rights which they felt were important to their position and that had been denied under Claudius and Caligula. Furthermore he passed a series laws which were in reality relatively minor, such as removing the mandatory requirement for Quaestors to put on games during the year of their appointment, however these allowed the senators to feel as though they we relevant to the Empire once again. Finally he personally aided several senators who were in financial difficulties. All of this, we can safely assume, was Seneca’s idea.  

            The Senators were usually the ones who wrote the contemporary histories drawn upon by later writers. This early befriending of the Senate, followed by Nero completely ignoring them later in his reign is probably what gave rise to the idea of the quinquenium, the five year long ‘golden age’ of Nero’s reign, when he listened to the Senators – and is claimed to have ended with the death of his mother in 59. In fact after Agrippina’s murder life continued as normal until the death of Burrus and the retirement of Seneca three years later in 62. It would be wrong however to state that the entire senate was completely against Nero from this point on. For example when touring Greece Nero did have among his entourage a few sycophantic senators and a few who were forced to come, essentially as hostages, however he also had men like the well-respected senator Cluvius Rufus: “he was a friend of Nero and acted as his herald at the Neronian games in 65 and during the tour of Greek games in 66 and 67” who came because, as Champlin said, he simply was a friend of Nero’s. 

The Common Man: 

            As previously discussed in the section on Nero’s character, he knew how to keep the common people happy, in fact some of his detractors say this was his only beneficial skill. He gladly financed all sorts of extravagant celebrations, even though he is reported to have not been the biggest fan of gladiatorial combat (preferring acting, chariot racing, musical performances, etc…) he still went to all those he could. In this he showed solidarity with the people; it was very important for a Roman emperor to be seen as liking similar things to the common people, Malitz mentions that Caesar himself once made this particular mistake, sitting in his loge doing paperwork rather than watching the games, and the expression of public displeasure was so great that he changed his behaviour. Augustus learned from Caesar’s example, always showing an interest in what was happening in the arena, and Nero follows in this tradition – even in spectacles that were not to his personal taste (though he did schedule them less often). In periods of grain shortage he acted both quickly and generously (to preserve public opinion no doubt) by, for example: using his own wealth to offset a price increase; or replacing a shipment of grain that went missing from his own stores. He was also generous with his property after the great fire in 64, opening up his gardens and setting up basic shelters to house some of the homeless; furthermore he made sure cheap foodstuffs were imported from other nearby cities. 

            Nero is mentioned as being exceptionally popular with the common man up until only a few weeks prior to his death, when rumours of his erratic actions finally got out to the populace and (according to Suetonius): “The bitter feeling against him was increased because he also turned the high cost of grain to his profit” (here we see the desperation in him over the rebellion, abusing his power over the grain he had distributed so fairly before). Even after Nero’s death Suetonius writes: “some, however, who were not wanting [to celebrate Nero’s death], who for a long time decked his tomb with spring and summer flowers” thereby showing that Nero still had those that missed his rule inside Rome itself. Galba’s rule was an austere one, a far cry from the extravagances of Nero so it is highly likely that people remembered him more fondly during this time. 

Establishing and Preserving his Powerbase: 

            Therefore as Nero’s rule started he had both the Senate, and the common people supporting him as Emperor; due to Burrus’ position at its head the Praetorian Guard were also friendly towards him, and indeed when Burrus died Nero made sure that one of his replacements (Tigellinus) was just as supportive towards his reign. The Praetorians were not Nero’s unquestioning servants however: Burrus warned Nero against using them to kill his mother, as she was a member of the line of Germanicus – who they greatly respected. Furthermore their other leader after Burrus’ death, Faenius Rufus, was implicated in the Pisonian conspiracy in 65: “but the mainstay was felt to be Faenius Rufus, Commander of the guard. His respectability and good reputation had made less impression on Nero than the cruelty and depravity of his colleague Tigellinus”. After the plot’s failure and the execution of Rufus, Nero chose a far more unscrupulous replacement: Nymphidius Sabinus, an illegitimate son of Caligula; and indeed he did prove to be unscrupulous, as soon as Galba rose as a contender Nymphidius abandoned his emperor and seized control of Rome. However for the majority of his reign, Nero maintained a good relationship with his Praetorian guard; ensuring that he could rely on them in times of crisis. 

            Despite constant accusations of Nero indulging every one of his desires with wild abandon the instant after his mother’s death; there is evidence that he restricted his own artistic endeavours in order to maintain his public image. Agrippina died in 59, Burrus in 62 and Seneca retired that same year, yet it is not until 64 that Nero performs as freely as other artists. Furthermore he performed his first wholly public performance in Naples rather than Rome – a city known for its far stronger Hellenistic ties – seemingly testing how the public would react to him on stage. Not only can we see here caution uncharacteristic of Nero’s reign, but we can also find evidence of him using his art to consolidate his power. Thrasea Paetus was deemed an adversary not only because of his stoic beliefs, but also due to his refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor’s ‘divine voice’. Nero made sure that his informants were scattered throughout the crowd, noting down who was/wasn’t there, who was avoiding his recitals and who appeared bored by them, before reporting back to him afterwards. Vespasian’s reputation, for example, was certainly damaged when he was reported as falling asleep during a performance. This is quite astute political thinking by Nero, if he wasn’t going to bow to the pressure of the Senate and others who disapproved of his performances, noting who didn’t turn up for them was a good way of identifying possible political opponents.  

            Nero seems to have had an unhealthy obsession with the line of Augustus, His position in Rome was secure for the majority of his reign, yet even early on when the senate supported him, Burrus and the Praetorians were unquestioningly loyal and he was beloved by the vast majority of the populace, he was busy removing not only threats to his rule, but anyone who could become a threat later in life. His opinions on the matter are probably due to the machinations of Agrippina early in his rule: fearing being side-lined by the new regime she threatened to abandon her own son’s rule and, by admitting that she poisoned Claudius to make her son Emperor, irreparably damage Nero’s reputation thus paving the way for Britannicus to overthrow him. Nero’s actions at this point were at least understandable, though not condonable; after all what could he do against such a spiteful action? He could kill his mother, he could kill Britannicus, or he could lose his position (and possibly his life). He was obviously not going to sacrifice his position and risk his own life; so of the two other options, killing Britannicus was probably the lesser of two evils. This first murder therefore was understandable, however Nero followed this up by exterminating every one of Augustus’ descendants including, if Suetonius is to be believed, his own unborn child (albeit accidently): “killed her [Poppaea] with a kick which he gave her when she was big with child and in bad health, just because she found fault with him for returning late from driving a chariot”. Not one claimant to the Empire with a better relationship to Augustus survived to the end of Nero’s rule, which at least meant he was efficient, however Nero probably placed too much emphasis on being Augustus’ direct descendant. In the Pisonian plot, when the conspirators were looking for alternate candidates, with all of the Augustan line dead they simply chose someone unrelated – Gaius Piso – to spearhead the revolution. All Nero achieved therefore was making the inevitable plot centre around someone he did not expect. 

            Finally Nero’s treatment of the Christians after the great fire must be analysed. After the fire a large swathe of Rome had be burned down and fingers began to be pointed, some of them at Nero himself, despite Nero’s efforts civil unrest began therefore: “To suppress this rumour Nero fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called)”. The reason the Christian’s were chosen was simple: their cult was small; their adherents were not in any positions of power; and they were hated by much of the populace. We know Suetonius believed that Nero chose the Christians specifically: “he likewise inflicted punishments on the Christians, a sort of people who held a new and impious superstition” Suetonius seems to indicate that Nero chose to blame the sect not only because he needed a scapegoat, but also because they deserved to be punished. In the end giving the fire’s victims a target stopped the turmoil the city was heading towards; the accusations against the Christians which lead to their oppression was not kind, it was not pleasant, however it was both wise and effective. 

            To conclude Nero’s relationship with the Roman Empire: he knew how to get the populace on his side; he seems to have learned from Seneca in his formative years how to influence the Senate and the tensions later in his reign were due more to his belief that they could no longer help his goals rather than any personal enmity towards them. He knew how important the Praetorian Guard were and did all he could to keep them friendly. His treatment of the Christians was by no means justified; however he chose the scapegoat well. And finally his purging of Augustus’ descendants was at least efficient, if not effective.