What did Tacitus write about Nero and the Great Fire of Rome 64AD?

score:20

Accepted answer

One way to determine this is to go to a translation of the source, which should provide you with all the Tacitus you can eat on the subject.

In short, Tacitus suggests that Nero may well have been the primary motivation for the fire starting where and when it did, although Nero himself was in Antium when the fire started (again, according to Tacitus).

As far as alternate theories, I'm not aware of any, but that's not to say they don't exist. If you don't buy into the whole "Nero wanted to build himself a bigger house in the middle of Rome" angle, I think the next most reasonable guess would be that a fire accidentally started in the wrong part of town at the wrong time, and grew out of control. Accidental fires in Rome were hardly uncommon, even if this particular fire was a whopper.

Upvote:0

In a recent book, "The Great Fire of Rome" Stephen Dando Collins puts forward the theory that Tacitus didn't say that Nero blamed the Christians, but that he blamed an Egyptian sect for the fire. Later writers, "knowing" that Nero persecuted Christians, changed the text.

Upvote:13

The alternative theory is put forward by Suetonius (Nero, 38-39) who strongly supports the idea that the fire was Nero's doing, and that common people saw his agents with torches but didn't dare stop or detain them. 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned' is a reference to Suetonius's account of Nero singing a poem (probably of his own composition) about the fall of Troy, standing atop Maecenas's tower on the Esquiline (the exact location of the tower is not known, but it could be on or near the spot of Teatro Brancaccio in today's Rome).

Incidentally, Nero couldn't fiddle, of course, because string instruments of that kind were not invented yet.

Both sources agree that Nero led a major relief effort after the fire, making the city safer and cleaner. One should keep in mind that our main sources were written during the reign of dynasties hostile to Nero, and badmouthing him could be a side effect of that. Also, Nero committed suicide when he was only 30, so the idea of a lecherous and depraved old or at least middle-aged man on the Roman 'throne' is not very realistic.

More post

Search Posts

Related post