the stern praefect of praetorians making proper show of admiration at his side1. For some time this safety-valve sufficed: at the first 'Neronia '2 he was content to be a spectator, and to receive the uncontested prize of eloquence; in daily life he would affect the reputation of a poet', or such ironical show of interest in graver studies as consisted in amusing himself by pitting against each other in discussion the grim-visaged professors of philosophy who were well pleased to be his guests. Five years later, when 'so grand a voice' could no longer be so imprisoned, he could still be satisfied with a city nominally Greek, and sang in the public theatre at Naples, passing rapidly in the following year, after the suppression of the great conspiracy had emboldened him, to an exhibition at the next 'Neronia' in the great theatre of Pompeius, a step followed a year later still by the final climax of his tour of victory through the great historic games of Greece 10. The description given by Tacitus of Nero's first appearance on the stage of the greatest Roman theatre" is in his most graphic manner. We are to see him recite a poem and retire, and then, as if in obedience the great public games, but also to enter into the local contests of all the cities, so as to collect an incredible number of crowns (given in Dio, 63. 21, 2, as 1808); and that while any remained to be gained, he was deaf to all intimations that his presence was required in Rome (Id. 63. 19, 1; Suet. Ner. 23); also that he stooped to act all kinds of parts (63. 9, 4; 10, 2). On the other hand, the story that he destroyed all the statues of previous victors (Suet. Ner. 24) is inconsistent with the fact that many such were subsequently to be seen; and, while we cannot suppose Nero not to have made use of the tempting opportunities for art pillage then presented to him, such an estimate as that of 500 statues taken from Delphi alone (Paus. 10. 7, 1) is in itself incredible; and such wholesale plunder not easy to reconcile with our record of the vast number of statues still remaining in the cities and temples of Greece in the time of Pausanias himself, or in that of Pliny. Also the statement of his extortions from, and execution of, great numbers of wealthy Greeks (Dio, 63. 11, 1), while probably by no means without foundation, bears strong marks of overstatement, and is supported by no names or details of any kind. On these and other points see Schiller, pp. 246–252. 11 16. 4-5. to the voice of the people, come forward with a show of reluctance, harp in hand, scrupulously observing the minutest rules of professional etiquette, making his obeisance to the demoralised assemblage, and trembling, or affecting to tremble, before his judges 1. We are shown the contrast of the drilled and disciplined applause, and well-assumed, if not genuine enthusiasm of his great clientele, the Roman rabble 2, with the ill-concealed contempt of the municipal, provincial, and other respectable sections of the audience, who had to bear the blows of the soldiers at one moment for slackness, at another for ill-timed clapping. We have the higher classes, not daring to be absent, some crushed to death in the press, some struck down in their seats by diseases arising from exhaustion, with every look of weariness and disgust noted down by spies and sure to be sooner or later resented, and Vespasian scolded by a freedman for nodding in slumber, and brought into such peril as well-nigh to baulk his destiny. It must be borne in mind that, side by side with the genuine and righteous feeling of disgust at this degradation of imperial majesty, repeating on a greater scale and in more manifold forms the extravagances of Gaius, was a less creditable current of old Roman prejudice against Greek amusements 1. This is seen in full strength in the murmurs at the institution of the 'Neronia 5', where Tacitus freely admits that the force of argument was not wholly on one side, and that the gloomy anticipations were not justified by the result. At a time when the old national military exercises, invidiously contrasted with the palaestra, must have been growing more and more obsolete, we can see that the best minds should have welcomed, on the score of humanity and refinement, any counterattraction to that of the amphitheatre; but the feeling above noted is certainly a force to be estimated, as also the dismay felt at the rush of the Roman nobility to hire themselves out for the stage, the circus, or the arena. Such precedents as had already existed must have served only to set off a contrast in 9 1 Tacitus says 'ficto pavore'; but in the state of mind into which Nero had worked himself, such nervousness might well be genuine. How deeply he was imbued with the spirit of a professional musician is shown especially by the unabated fervour of his ruling passion at the supreme crisis of his life (see Suet.41; Dio, 63. 26, 2, 4), above all by his rò TEXVÍOV ἡμᾶς διαθρέψει when he felt that the empire was lost to him (Id. 27, 2), and the 'qualis artifex pereo' of his last moments (Id. 29, 2; Suet. Ner. 49). which, besides the broken-down descendants of great historic names', knights of position and known service 2, and even elderly senators who had filled a career of public honours, stooped to the degradation of contending in the circus or in the amphitheatre, or went through all the antics of the comic stage. They could plead, no doubt, that they dared not refuse the bribe held out to them; but the example was contagious and longlived; and men could still see the clown tricks of a Fabius or Mamercus when there was no longer a Nero to compel 5. Still more new, and far more prolific in evil, was the demoralisation of women, from the lowest to the highest rank, by public appearances in all these capacities, and the creation, or at least first open exhibition, of the type of the unsexed viragoes who continued for more than a century to outrage decency. To all this has to be added the demoralisation due to the shameless example of profligacy set by the prince himself, and to the public scandal of his entertainments; in which the mere luxury of the table, though reaching in his day a climax to which it had been steadily rising ever since the time of Actium, was far outweighed by their outrageous licentiousness 10. Gradually also the Roman nobility began to feel a danger that touched 1 See 14. 14, 5, and note. 2. Notos equites Romanos operas arenae promittere subegit' (14. 14, 6). 3 See the description of the Iuvenalia of 815, A.D. 59 (14. 15, 2), and the additional statements of Dio and Suet. noted on 14. 14, 5, 6, which receive some support from 15. 32, 3 (where see note). The statement of Suet. that many were not decayed spendthrifts but 'existimationis integrae,' is borne out by the expressions of Tacitus. 14. 14, 6. 5 See the whole passage (Juv. 8, 183– 210). According to the satirist, they were as ready in his day to sell themselves to the ordinary games of the praetor as to those of an emperor. The old pride of rank which forbad senators and their families to earn a living by honest trade must have been indeed signally punished. See 14. 15, 3; 15. 32, 3, and notes. 7 The description of such in Juv. 1. 22 (where see Prof. Mayor); 2, 53; 6, 246267, is well known. On the prohibition, cir. A. D. 200, see note on 15. 32, 3. * See 15. 37, 8, 9; 16. 19, 5, and notes. * See 3. 55, 1. The ransacking of earth, sea, and air for dainties, and their collection from all parts of the world, is dwelt on by writers of this period (Sen. ad Helv. 10, 3; Ep. 60, 2; 89, 22, &c.; Plin. N. H. 26. 8, 28, 43), but certainly cannot have been peculiar to it; and Nero, though spending much of his time in feasting (see 14. 2, 1, and note), is not so distinctly charged with filthy gluttony as was previously Claudius or afterwards Vitellius. The great extravagance under him seems to have taken a more refined form, and to have lain chiefly in the accessories of the feast, the profusion of gold plate and jewels (Plin. N. H. 37. 2, 6, 17), unguents and flowers (Suet. Ner. 27, the crowd of attendants, singers, dancers, and such novelties of all kinds as ingenuity could suggest: nor is it to be denied that the table luxury of that age is not apparently all that declamation makes it, and that it may often have been equalled or even eclipsed in more modern times. On the whole subject see Schiller, p. 516, foll.; Friedl. iii. 31, foll. On the example set in other forms of luxury, such as his own travelling equipage (Suet. Ner. 30), and that of Poppaea (Plin. N. H. 11. 41, 96, 238, &c.), see Friedl. ii. 29. 10 The beginning of such demoralisation is noted at the Iuvenalia (14. 15, 4, 5), the development at the feast given by Tigellinus (15. 37, 2-7); and both Tacitus and Suet. (Ner. 27) speak of similar scenes as frequent. their existence far more closely, as they saw that men of their order began to be struck down cautiously and tentatively, that if they were few and isolated, they were extremely eminent, that a steady purpose seemed to be working itself out, and that definite charges and legal forms were almost or altogether dispensed with. Cornelius Sulla, the son-in-law of Claudius and a representative of the name of the famous dictator, and Rubellius Plautus, a direct descendant of Octavia1, were men round whose names fancied conspiracies had been made to gather2; and first one, then the other, had been banished or induced to banish himself on some invented or imagined charge 3; and some time afterwards, on some pretext not made public, soldiers had been sent to execute the exiles without more ado; a vague and general report being laid before the senate afterwards, to be followed by the mockery of posthumous condemnation". Higher even than that of either of these was the lineage of the Junii Silani, the only direct descendants of Augustus save Nero himself; and the onslaught on this family commenced by Agrippina was carried on by Nero in 817, A.D. 64, by a private trial, resulting in the death of its chief living representative 3. 6 Still more ominous, as showing that not only the few highest, who might aspire to the imperial dignity itself, were menaced, was the revival in 815, A.D. 62, against one of the praetors of the year, of that terrible weapon of tyranny in former times, the law of 'maiestas '10, which had been long in desuetude 11, but of which they were now made again to feel the edge; while Nero's evident displeasure at the course taken under the 1 For his pedigree, see Introd. i. 141. 2 On that connected with Sulla see 13. 23, I; on that respecting Plautus, 13. 19, Both charges are represented as groundless, and the accusers are punished, but both must have left their mark on Nero's memory. 3. 3 The charge against Sulla is represented (13. 47) as wholly made up, and contrary to his character; the compulsory retirement of Plautus is assigned to no other cause than the occurrence of a comet and another omen (14. 22, 5). The exile of the former took place in 811, A. D. 58, that of the latter in 813, A.D. 60, the deaths of both in 815, A. D. 62. 'The idea of the potency of the name of the dictator in Gaul and of the descendant of Drusus in Asia, and the probability of support to the one from the German, and to the other from the Syrian legions, is given as the private counsel of Tigellinus, who desired to put Nero's vague terror into definite shape (14. 57). leadership of Thrasea, showed that the extreme sentence of death had been expected'. Even a lower class would be alarmed by the current belief that in the same year the once all-powerful Pallas and another leading freedman had fallen victims respectively to the emperor's avarice and animosity 3. Thus all in prominent positions would feel that they were drifting back into a similar condition of constraint and jeopardy to that which had prevailed under former princes, and that while their danger increased, their safeguards one by one were struck from them. The death of Burrus, in which again foul play was commonly believed to have had a share ", took place in the same year which so many events combined to make ominous; and in the same year Seneca, isolated by this loss, and, by evident decay of influence, marked out for the attacks of those who wished him ill, could only avert his danger by a prompt offer to surrender all his property, and by a cautious withdrawal from all outward show of eminence; so that men had no longer to reckon on the influence of these trusted counsellors, but on that of Tigellinus and Poppaea. On minds thus prepared to expect and believe the worst, terrible impression must have been made by the great fire of 817, A. D. 64, and by the rumours that Nero himself had been its author. From this imputation, which Tacitus alone of our authorities treats as even open to doubt1o, the judgment of recent critics has been on the whole disposed to absolve his memory. The improbability of the motives assigned ", his absence at the outbreak 12, the energetic measures taken by the government for its suppression 13, the bounty shown to the sufferers ", weigh considerably 1 14. 49, 3. He had evidently not intended sentence of death to be carried out, but to win the glory of clemency by modifying it (c. 48, 3); which the proposal carried by Thrasea had taken from him. 2 14. 65, I. The expression used ('creditur') shows that there was no evidence for the suspicion of poisoning; but the belief, however groundless, has to be taken into account. The story given by Dio (see note on 14. 19, 1) of persons put to death in 812, A.D. 59, by soldiers on a charge of conspiracy, is discredited by the silence of Tacitus. ♦ Gravescentibus indies publicis malis subsidia minuebantur' (14. 51, 1). 5 14. 51, 1-3. It seems to be admitted that he had a natural disease, but to be alleged that the salve was poisoned. 815, A. D. 62. 7 14. 52. |