Talk:Nero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of High-importance within classical antiquity.

Talk:Nero/Archive 1

Contents 1 Understanding Authors and Bias is Central to Understanding Nero 2 Vindex 3 Roman Dates 4 "Nero fiddled..." 5 Citation 6 Protection 7 Grammer 8 Nero's infamy over time 9 Protection 10 Spelling 11 Size of Golden House 12 NPOV on "Rebellions" and Inaccuracy in "Religion" 13 Fire and Nero's Motive 14 Nero as first persecutor 15 Image license questionable 16 Nero assaulting citizens? 17 TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

[edit] Understanding Authors and Bias is Central to Understanding Nero

Unlike today, historians in Roman times did not seek impartiality. They embellished, exaggerated and lied. This makes documenting ancient history difficult. A simple citation of an ancient historian does not create fact. We have to look at context and likelihood of a statement.

Was Nero really a monster? Probably no more than any other emperor. Rome prospered under Nero's rule and the public seemed to like him. He was emperor and he was considered divine.

What do we really know about Nero? Almost nothing. His edicts were fairly routine administrative acts. We know his family's names, we know he had a war with Parthia and we know the senate hated him.

Yet, Nero is known as a monster and is commonly referenced as one.

It would be a disservice to anyone reading this article to omit either side of discussion.

The article has been improving greatly. The citations and quotes are extremely helpful. I think that the article is neutral. Keep it up!

[edit] Vindex

There is a bit of a discrepancy between this article and the one on Vindex: The article on Nero dates the rebellion at 68, where the one on Vindex is at 67 - if there is a historical debate on this one, then surely both dates should be put, if not then one is clearly wrong.

I'm no Roman historian, I was just fixing up the grammar, but if anybody else knows, could they fix it up?

On an minor note, the Nero article names him as Julius Vindex, where the Vindex article calls him Iulius; it's a minor thing really, but shouldn't wikipedia have a consensus on spelling, or at least provide alternate spellings?

--Lord Pheasant 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The time of Vindex's rebellion is still a problem. I can't find a source that gives a good date. Tacitus' Annals cuts off before the events, Suetonius and Josephus are vague. Hoshidoshi

[edit] Roman Dates

I'm just curious; how could they place an exact date on Nero's death? The Gregorian Calendar wasn't invented yet and the Romans had a different calendar back then. How could we know Nero's exact birth date and death even though it took place when another calender was in use? -- Mr. Sinistar 20:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how Nero's death is determined (I've searched and couldn't find it), but his birth day is listed by Suetonius. The date listed on the page is its Julian date.

The Julian weakness is they do not eliminate the century leap days; Gregorian calanders eliminate 3 out of four century leap days. Every 100 years, the Julian Calander shifts off .75 days. Eventually, the Julian calander was 10 days behind in 1582. To fix this, October 15, 1582, followed October 4th, 1582.

So, Suetonius places Nero's birthday as the 18th day before the Kalends of January. 1st-Dec 31 2nd-Dec 30 3-29 4-28 5-27 6-26 7-25 8-24 9-23 10-22 11-21 12-20 13-19 14-18 15-17 16-16 17-15 18th-Dec 14.

The 14th? Well, no. Romans are screwy and count inclusively. When Suetonious says 18th day, he's including January 1st, so he really means the 17th day, thus the 15th of December. So, according to the Julian Calander, Nero was born December 15th.

But, what about the shift? Well, in the 1st century, the Julian Calander was 2 days ahead. Thus, on our Gregorian Calander, Nero was born on Decmber 13th. Hoshidoshi

[edit] "Nero fiddled..."

The briefest of references should suffice. This naive statement isn't recent, however. It's a secondhand interpretation of a passage in Tacitus. How old is "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" anyway? Eighteenth century? Seventeenth century? Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins comments "The notion that Nero fiddled while Rome burned is nonsense because the fiddle wasn't invented until many centuries after he ruled Rome, from 54 to 68 CE." Jim Whiting, The Life and Times of Nero is too vague:"Much later, a legend about the event would evolve: Nero fiddled while Rome burned. It is clearly false. ..." (p 35.) It's also explained in The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire by Eric D. Nelson... aptly enough. --Wetman 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now found that William Cobbett said of Shakespeare's assertion about the effects of the love of music, "he seems to have forgotten that it was a music and a dance-loving damsel that chose, as a recompense for her elegant performance, the bloody head of John the Baptist, brought to her in a charger; he seems to have forgotten that, while Rome burned, Nero fiddled..." (Advice to Young Men And (Incidentally) to Young Women in the Middle and Higher Ranks of Life., 1829.) --Wetman 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't he piping before he was fiddling...? I always heard that it was originaly piping, but later got changed to fiddling. The violin only made its entrance in the 1500s anyway, I think. 216.144.111.186 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

"Popular legend remembers Nero as a playboy and a tyrant; he is known as the emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned." These assumptions regarding his behavior are based on hostile sources, namely Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Tacitus. Nero's life was documented almost entirely by his primary rivals— the senatorial class who were pro-Flavian. Because of historical slander, it may be impossible to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction regarding Nero's rule."

Where is the citation for the paragraph? Where did it come from? As is, these are assertions that need to be backed up with a citation. Where does "fiddled while Rome burned" come from? It's a quote it need to be cited.

You're right that we need citation here. It's pretty clear that Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Tacitus are biased against Nero and its important to note. The cause is a bit harder to pin point. Are they just pro-Republic and want more Senatorial power? Do they like the Flavians? Do they just love Trajan?

We have one ref from the 19th century about fiddling (listed in the fire section, perhaps it should be added again to the beginning), but that's about it. It's pretty frustrating to me that the most famous idea of Nero is unaccountable. I'll keep researching, though.Hoshidoshi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Protection

This article has been sprotected for two months. Is it really such a frequent vandalism target? Gazpacho 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This article gets vandalized constantly by all sorts. You get people putting in all sorts of stuff about him being the anti-Christ and you get people that include stuff they saw in movies. Religious folk have strong feelings about Nero and like to express it. You also get people who like to come in and talk about Nero being gay. The lock and the heavy citation are the only things creating any sort of stability to the article. The article is improving vastly, though.

[edit] Grammer

Someone who has an account here, please change the spelling of "negaive" to "negative" and "striking" to "strikingly" under the Neutral Writers section. Spelling counts, and the Wiki admins might want to think twice about locking an article before proof-reading the damned thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.97.240 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

The "er" and the use of the word were intentional, by the way. 69.216.97.240 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nero's infamy over time

There probably is some truth in saying that there was increasing demonization of Nero over time. However, stating so without citation is POV b/c it is presenting a specific, uncited thesis. Please provide a citation for this, otherwise it is original research. (Please see WP:NOR.)

We have an entire section describing Nero's historians in detail, including timelines. People can make up their own mind concerning how fantastic each description of Nero is without inserting our own commentaries.

Djma12 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the historiography section does have NPOV issues regarding how it groups writers (why is Tacitus considered critical? Why is Josephus considered a defender?), and how it poisons the well at the beginning of each group section. Having an introductory paragraph that summarizes the sourced info that follows does not seem like a problem to me, just good style. Gazpacho 03:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're right on some points. The whole "Defender" vs "Critical" section is probably a thinly veiled POV war. I would love to hear what you have to propose concerning cleaning this section up. (I mean, it takes up 1/3rd the article for crying out loud...) However, I do object to having original research inserted in an introductory paragraph. The progressive demonization of Nero is a thesis, and thus must be cited. Djma12 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Why is this page protected? It says 'for recent vandalism' from October 2006 which must have died away by now, surely. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the protection is unnecessary. Djma12 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This article receives constant vandalism even with protection. Registering is pretty easy. Why change? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.51.55 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spelling

Theres a spelling mistake it says "the praetoran prefect" can someone with an account please change it? :)--82.71.72.46 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

what's the error supposed to be? 71.218.97.164 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of Golden House

I don't know how modern sources got a figure like 1/3 of Rome. Its seems unlikely. Anicent sources are silent on the size of the campus. Is there any explanation on the method for the determination? Hoshidoshi

• The 1/3 figure does not refer to simply the house itself, as the Domus Aurea was a palatial complex involving statuary, gardens, and an artifical lake. The size can be seen in that the Baths of Titus, the Flavian Amphitheater, the Baths of Trajan, and Temples of Venus and Rome were all built on the site after most of it was cleared. The size estimates from the modern sources derive from archaelogical excavation done starting with the Domus's discovery in the 15th century. For further references, pleases attend to the sources provided.Djma12 22:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what it was. 1/3 still seems ridiculous. That figure must be excluding the Campus Martius and everything on the west bank and must include "proposed" construction. We know that it was basically on and around the Esquiline, into the valley between the Esquailine and the Caelian and on some of the Velia. The construction had not made it onto the Caelian, yet, since the site of the Temple of Claudius was there.

http://www.the-colosseum.net/images/hills.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

• If the proportion of Rome is the issue, why don't we just cite the excavated size? That would be more objective than a proposed proportion of Rome? Djma12 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV on "Rebellions" and Inaccuracy in "Religion"

• Saying that "Rome was relatively peaceful during Nero's reign" is an opinion as it is by definition dependent upon reference. Sure, Nero's reign was peaceful compared to Galba but not compared to Aurelius. Therefore "relatively peaceful" is misleading and NPOV statement. Furthermore, citing poetry to justify this statement hardly makes it less NPOV.

Compared to the hundred years before and after, Nero's reign was peaceful. I'll add more citations to this if Lucanus is insufficient. Nero was remembered for this peace and the list of rebellions gives the impression that things were unstable. Hoshidoshi

I think the statement "Like many other emperors..." statement more than demonstrates that other emperor's also had rebellion problems. If your concern is that Nero's reign seems unstable b/c it had five major revolts and a major war, then maybe its b/c it actually was the case. Djma12 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. On the other hand, Nero was credited at a time for achieving world peace (perhaps erroniously) and was remembered by many as a ruler during good times. Maybe it was just because the earlier civil wars and those during the Year of the Four Emperors sucked so much. I'll do some reading tomorrow and fix it upHoshidoshi

• Christian tradition on Nero's persecution of the Christians does not soley derive from the Tactius. Referencing the early Church fathers starting with Augustine clarfies this. If you believe that the Church fathers DERIVED their belief from the early Roman sources, this is a thesis that requires citation. Djma12 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added Suetonius as well. Keep in mind, nothing appears about his "persecution" of Chistians until hundreds of years after his death. Tacitus and Suetonius are the earliest sources. I think its safe to assume it came from them. hoshidoshi

Can't assume that. Early Church tradition, like in many religions, was an oral tradition. This a specific thesis and requires citation. Djma12 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to do some reading on this tomorrow, but you're probably right. We have no idea what oral tradition was. Thanks for keeping me honest, Djma12. Hoshidoshi

[edit] Fire and Nero's Motive

Of couse, Nero probably didn't burn Rome, but two men claimed he did and the motive attached to Nero is pretty poor.

Though it is possible that modern historians have placed an urban renewal motive on Nero for the fire, no ancient historian has:

Suetonius, Nero 38, claims: But she showed no greater mercy to the people or the walls of his capital. When someone in a general conversation said: "When I am dead, be earth consumed by fire," he rejoined "Nay, rather while I live," and his action was wholly in accord. For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city

Suetonius said Nero did it because he was mean. Urban renewal was a "cover."

Cassius Dio, Histories 62.16

After this Nero set his heart on accomplishing what had doubtless always been his desire, namely to make an end of the whole city and realm during his lifetime

Cassius Dio said Nero did it because he was destructive. No urban renewal is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC). Hoshidoshi 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoshidoshi. Here we are again :-)

• I would disagree with the interpretation of the Suetonius. Though the beginning of the passage states malice (probably one of the famous embelishments of Suetonius), the rest of the passage clearly states he wanted room for the Golden House. Let's look at the full passage:

For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city119 so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. 2 For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs.

• Tactius, who I think we both agree gives the most non-embelished account, speaks of a possible motivation towards renovation as well:

And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name.

• Given this, I think it's fair to mention that ancient historians also took strong suspicion that renovation was a motivation of Nero's, and not just insane malice.

• I would dispute the "quite common characterization on major fires in rome. Though Juvenal does mention Rome "falling apart", he was a playwright who's phrases should not be taken literally. I can count the number of major fires in Rome on one hand. Not a rarity, to be sure, but not "quite common" :-)

Best regards,

Djma12 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points, but I would counter-

• Suetonius does admit that Nero wanted room and pretended to be making room. He claims there was a city renovation, but it was a cover. The true motive, as Suetonius claims, was malice.

• Tacitus claims there was infamy from his exploitation of the situation, but does not claim Nero truly had that motivation.

Its pretty clear what really happened. A fire broke out, Nero exploited the situation too much for the people's liking, the public began to suspect Nero did it for the Domus Aurea. Oddly, though it is clear that there was a rumour that Nero did it for the space, no historian reports that as a motive. Instead, Tacitus admits it was mistake and Suetonius and Dio claims he was crazy.

Space for the Domus Aurea was a logical motive that was probably really circulating as a rumour, but no historian claims it to be true. Its kind of funny, really.

• I think the issue is what is "major". Fires happened every day, so they were common. Major fires (the kind that burned the whole city down) happened once a generation.

Fun stuff Hoshidoshi 21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I am lacking a time capsule, I wouldn't say its "pretty clear what really happened", but I suspect that your interpretation of events is fairly accurate :-) Unfortunately, neither one of us have actual citation to back this up. So what do we do?

I think its at least important to mention Nero as a possible arsonist, as this was a very strong suspicion during the time. Strong enough that it's mentioned by all our three historians, even if we have sprinklings of "insanity" added to the text of two. However, if we mentioned that these allegation were rumor, would that be more to your liking?

Djma12 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the three stories cannot be reconciled and, really, none of them make sense even on their own.

Let's start with Suetonius- Nero, wanting to destroy the city for no reason, orders men to burn the city under the pretense of city renovation in the poor area (the south). But then Suet immediately says that the arsons are in the rich area (the north-east) where the ex-consuls are and Nero steals granery land near the Goldern House that he wanted. Then Nero sang in public. So, Nero wanted it to be a secret (renovation cover) and not a secret (singing)? And Nero wanted to take to the rich area to build the Golden House, but burns the poor area? He burns his own new palace down to build another palace on top? Suetonius speaks of no public suspicion.

Then we have Dio- Nero, wanting to destroy the city for no reason, sends out men pretending to be drunk. He sings. The public curses Nero because a prophecy (that hasn't even been written yet) says he's guilty. So, again, Nero wants it to be a secret (drunkards) and not a secret (singing). The public suspects Nero because of a prophecy. No mention of Golden House.

And Tacitus- It was either an accident or Nero ordered it (he isn't sure). Nero rushes back, goes through a massive relief effort. But, still, there's rumours that he did it (no reason for them). So, he kills Christians. Seems to work. Then, much later, he builds the Golden House and it seems he burned the city to gain glory from building it anew. So, when Nero acted well, there was public suspicion. After building the Golden House, is seemed he did it to build a new city (though to whom? the public? historians), but there is little if any public reaction. During the same period, he started singing in public to much praise.

Really, all the motivations make no sense. The three don't know what Nero was thinking, therefore, I think don't think we should report anything on Nero's motives.Hoshidoshi 04:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I feign no hypothesis whatsoever towards what Nero was thinking. As such, I think it's fair that we don't report anything concerning Nero's motives.
• However, it is important to point out what public rumors at the time were. Otherwise, there is a non sequitor in the article. It is important to note WHY the public suspected Nero, otherwise Nero's subsequent persecution is simply out of the blue.
• Concerning the three sources -- yes, they are convoluted. However, they are still our primary sources. The Suety seems to be an amalgamation of the public rumor and the Dio seems to be the same + embelishment. The Tactius is the most stable of the three.
• I think including Tactius's quote (on Nero gaining infamy for his subsequent building as a source of suspicion) is fair game. Even if we don't believe it's what happened, its obvious from the Tactius is what many people extrapolated at the time being. Djma12 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tacitus does mention rumors of Nero's guilt as does Dio, but modern historians also point to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are homeless after the fire and there is no records of public protests. Instead, Nero stayed popular with the public.

Both Tacitus and Dio's stories are convoluted when it comes to public motivation for rumour as well. Dio claims that everyone knew about a prophecy and, thus, suspected Nero. Dio's story is incredibly clumsy as the Sylabine prophecy is written after Nero's death. Tacitus' story is also clumsy. People blaimed Nero (maybe because of economic hardship?), but accepted then that Christians did it, then the Golden House (much later) makes it look like Nero is guilty (to historians?), but the public doesn't react to this. They love Nero again (as shown is the cheers for him at the 2nd quinqunnial games in 65 and the parade for Armenian subjegation in 66). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

See Hoshi, you can't have it both ways :-)

1. Your first stance was that no primary source supported the rumors of fire. ("Though it is possible that modern historians have placed an urban renewal motive on Nero for the fire, no ancient historian has.") Now that we have established that there do exists accounts concerning rumors towards Nero, the stance is that the primary sources are confused, so we should go with modern scholarship. Either way, we should be allowed to mention what some prevailing rumors at the time were.

2. The same applies to Tacitus. You don't have any doubt concerning Tactius's accounts when he is describing Nero's relief efforts, but his accounts somehow become "clumsy" when dealing when aspects less favorable to Nero. Either we are allowed to use him or not. We shouldn't be allowed to selectively choose.

Not meaning to play "gotcha" on you. Just feel that, if we are going to have strict academic standards on the article, it should play both ways.

Best regards,

Djma12 ^(talk) 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoshi,

Looks we're at a bit of an impass. Rather than changing each other's edits, I've applied for some outside opinion. Hope you're not offended. Just think we have an honest disagreement on how to apply the primary sources.

For third party editors, kindly review if:

1. Primary accounts from Tactius and Cassius Dio stating rumors of Nero starting the fire for public renovation are fair game, or are they too muddled.
2. For two possible article versions, please see here.

Regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending Nero- he's a bad man. You're trying to make him look even worse by picking and choosing pieces from various accounts.

I think you need to read the accounts closely yourself and really pay attention to what they say.

1) I said no sources claimed Nero did it for urban renewal and that is still true. No source said that. 2) Tacitus and Dio mention that the public suspected Nero of burning Rome. 3) Dio says they suspected him because of a prophecy 4) Tacitus gives no reason on why they suspected him 5) Tacitus states that building the Golden House (years later) made it seem like Nero did it. This is very different than saying he did or the public thought he did. A statement like this could mean anything (i.e. historians looking back or a particular group). If he were referring to the public, it makes little sense since these feelings of resentment would come years later.

The point being, no one is accusing Nero of burning Rome for urban renewal. Not Suetonius, not Dio, not Tacitus, not the public. No account.

The only way to come to this theory to pick a little bit from each, twist it and present it. That's original research which isn't allowed. Hoshidoshi 04:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(I am commenting here in response to the request for impartial editorial input as requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography.) I disagree somewhat with the phrasing of the RfC for impartial editors to comment on. I would tend to err on avoiding original research, no matter how excellent, and focus on capturing what the general consensus is amongst modern historians. (After all, otherwise, how far do you want to go? Some scholars question that the translations of Tacitus that have survived have had Christian "propaganda" inserted; etc, etc.) I spent some time surfing .edu sites, encyclopedias, PBS/BBC documentaries, and similar (somewhat populist) sources and they pretty much echoed what I thought the consensus was. Namely, that historians in the past have blamed Nero for the fire, but modern historians consider that highly unlikely; that there were indeed rumors at the time that Nero was behind it; that Nero made himself even more impopular by seizing on the fire as an opportunity for some extreme experiments in urban architecture; and that Nero chose to deflect blame onto the Christians (either simply to deflect blame, or because the Christian sect actually was implicated), and thus also went down in history as starting the Roman "tradition" of persecuting Christians (as opposed to persecuting the joint group of Jews and Christians). I would suggest that the main Nero article has a summary of what modern historians generally believe (whatever that is, if it's not what I summarized), and that you move all the detailed discussion (which is fascinating!) to the separate article on the fire per se. --Psm 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nero as first persecutor

Also, I think the Christian tradition is a bit misrepresented in this section. Though Nero is considered a major persecutor of Christians, he is definitely not universally considered the FIRST. There is a reason that Stephen is mentioned as the first martyr, and this occurs during the rule of Claudius.

To back up this statement, we have one quotation from Tertullian which hardly counts as a summary of Christian opinion. Furthermore, we have no indiciation whether Tertullian meant that Nero was the first persecutor or the first MAJOR persecutor.

As it stands, the section just seems like way to discredit Christian tradition. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The section says "often" and not "universally." Nero was considered the antichrist by many in early christian literature and him being labeled as the "first persecutor" and the killer or peter and paul comes up all the time. The section lists its sources. If they happen to contradict, that's the sources' fault. If you have other sources, please present them.

(BTW, Stephen lived under Tiberius)

As for "first" or "first major". Tertullian says "first". Also, we have no idea if Nero's persecution was major. It could have been as few as four or as many as hundreds. How many does it take to be "major"?

The truth is slippery. We really have no idea what happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoshidoshi (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC).Hoshidoshi 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image license questionable

In asserting public domain rights for the "graffiti" image used in this article, it is said that the image is a:

...copy of ancient graffiti depicting Nero. Original author died over 1800 years ago, thus public domain.

In the wake of the Copyright Term Extension Act and other moves to extend the lifetime of copyrights - perhaps even retroactively - I dispute the suffiency of the current license. New legislation pending in congress would likely remove this image from the public domain, and Wikipedia will have to obtain permission from the author or his heirs if Wikipedia wishes to use it. As a likely heir of the author, I demand its immediate removal. Bill Oaf, Esq.

Very week, abstract argument. Since the author died 1800 years ago, we're all likely heirs. Plus, you can't demand anything on "pending" legislation.Hoshidoshi 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nero assaulting citizens?

It has often been written that Nero and his friends would sometimes go out at night, "prowling the streets of Rome and rob or beat senators". How much of this is true? As far as I can tell the article makes no mention of this, but it's a story that has frequently been attributed to him. Has no-one bothered to write it into the article yet, or was it omitted on purpose? It may just be a myth of course. --Steerpike 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many sources speak of how Nero liked to go out and party with the plebs in public. Tacitus writes that early in Nero's reign (early 55), he would go out with a gang and beat and rob senators until senators started also started rolling with gangs themselves. (Tacitus 13.25) It's an odd story indeed. Cassius Dio reports a similar tale. He claims that Nero would go out in public and, being a celebrity, chaos would break out. (History 61.8-9) Dio adds that Nero would assault the public on the street and break into people's houses and shops making the whole city unsafe.

How much is true? Like almost everything about Nero, nobody knows. Tacitus is a hostile secondary source using hostile primary sources. Dio is a hostile tertiary source using hostile primary and secondary sources. To me, it sounds like historians resented Nero sucking up to the plebs and wanted to claim it was a public safety issue, but this is only my opinion. At the same time, like all emperors, Nero probably did send goons to scare political rivals. Again, this is just my opinion.

Was it omitted on purpose? No. The article can't include everything. If true, the event doesn't seem to affect much. If people think its important, it can be added (perhaps to the Consolidation of Power section).Hoshidoshi 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also a reference to the accusation in Pliny the Elder, who says that Nero treated his bruises with "thapsia" to avoid showing that he'd been fighting. EALacey 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hoshi, I think it's very unfair to characterize Tactius as a "hostile" source, considering that he's probably the most impartial of the ancient sources. In fact, YOU use him several times to justify how Nero rushed relief for the Great Fire, hardly a hostile statement. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is completely fair to call him hostile and nearly every modern historian agrees that he is a hostile source. Tacitus hates Nero. He just happens to be very detailed and usually fairer than Suetonius on Nero. There are several places in his work that show clear slander and malicious intent. But, for many events, he's all we've got. Now, on the fire, one of the things that makes people trust Tacitus's words is because he is a hostile source. If a hater of Nero admits that Nero did a good deed, than the good deed probably happened.Hoshidoshi 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this consensus of modern historians viewing Tacitus as hostile? I'm somewhat versed with the scholarship and have seen no such claim. Now if your view is that Tactius *must* be hostile b/c he writes ill of Nero, that is demonstrating an internal bias. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with writing ill; it has to do with misleading the reader. For instance, take Annals 14.2. In this, Tacitus mentions that Fabius Rusticus (who Tacitus himself claims is the most sensationalist of all historians) says that Nero lusted after his mom. Even though the public and all other sources including the insider Cluvius Rufus say the opposite, he reports it anyway. Perhaps one would argue that Tacitus is the type to simply give all points of view no matter how ridiculous. Ah, but he's not. If we check out Annals 12.67, Tacitus claims that is abundantly clear how Agrippina killed Claudius. Now, from Suetonius' Life of Claudius, we learn that details aren't clear at all. Tacitus is caught in a lie. Another, take Annals 15.49. Tacitus claims Nero banned Lucan's poetry. Yet in Suetonius' Life of Lucanus, we have an opposite take with Lucan insulting Nero and Nero not reacting at all. Tacitus purposely did not report a story in order to make Nero look bad. Tacitus may be the least biased, but he is still biased. There's even situations where Tacitus contradicts himself between the Annals and the Histories.

Now, if you simply want some modern authors who say the same thing, you can check out Edward Champlin, Nero, 36-52.Hoshidoshi 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that ultimately, the story is of little consequence to the article. Interesting reference from Pliny though. Thanks! --Steerpike 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.