Poppaea and Tigellinus

 

"Denarius showing Nero and Popaea"

Tacitus describes Poppaea and Tigellinus as the “companions of Nero’s cruelty” (15.61).  Dio says Poppaea persuaded Nero to kill his mother and exile his wife and Tigellinus incited Nero to murder (61.12.1, 61.13.1, 61.13.3).  Josephus confirms Poppaea’s influence over Nero in regard to the success of his own mission in 63-4, when he secured the release of some Jewish priests by overturning a decision by the procurator of Judea that favored King Herod Agrippa II.  Poppaea is described as having respect for religion but not necessarily having an attachment to Judaism (Vita 16, JA. 2.195).  She may have been born at Pompeii as the city was elevated to colony status around 63, when Poppaea received the title Augusta (Ann.15.23; CTL 4.3726; ILS 234).  Her beauty was famous. She inherited her looks from her mother, who became a victim of Messalina in 47 when she was accused of adultery and was driven to suicide (Ann. 11.2).

 

Poppaea’s first husband was the Praetorian Prefect Rufrius Crispinus.  The date of the marriage is unknown but they were divorced before 58 and had a son whom Nero is reported to have drowned (Nero 35.5).  There are various stories on how Nero met Poppaea.  One has Nero persuading Otho to marry her in order to make her available to the emperor (Hist. 1.13; Suet. Otho 3.1).  Another has Poppaea already married to Otho, who boasts once too often about her beauty to Nero and sparked his curiosity (Ann. 13.45-46).  Plutarch says that it was Otho who persuaded Poppaea to leave Crispinus and married her to make Poppaea available for Nero, but he became unwilling to allow the emperor his share (Galba 19.2-5). The mules that drew her carriage were shod with gold and five hundred asses produced milk for her daily bath to preserve her complexion; Juvenal says her name was given to a fashionable beauty preparation (NH 11.238, 33.140, 37.50; Sat. 6.462).

 

Ofonius Tigellinus was said to have had good looks and charmed his way into the household of Nero’s father and Marcus Vinicius. His father must have had some highly placed connections for him to associate with the imperial family.  He first appears in ancient sources in 39 when he was banished by Caligula for carrying on an adulterous relationship with Agrippina and Livilla. During his exile, he worked as a fisherman and went into trade (Dio 59.23.9).  Claudius allowed him to return to Italy on condition that he stay clear of the imperial family, so Tigellinus bought land in Apulia and Calabria with some money he received as an inheritance where he raised racehorses.

 

His rise to power was entirely credited to his friendship with Nero, based on their mutual interest in horses, yet it is not known how they met.  Tigellinus’ exile came in the wake of Lepidus’ conspiracy when Agrippina and Livilla suffered a similar fate.  Seneca also had some political involvement in the conspiracy and, in 42, was exiled by Claudius, accused of adultery with Livilla.   Tacitus says that Tigellinus was appointed to the post of praefectus vigilum, probably during 55-62 (Ann. 13.13).  His appointment came at a time when Seneca had his greatest influence in making appointments.  Nero had little interest in making appointments (only his tutors Anicetus (as prefect of the Misenum fleet) and Beryllus (as Greek secretary) were given positions), so it is highly probably that Tigellinus owed his appointment to Seneca since he had repudiated his ties with Agrippina (Ann. 11.53, 14.57; NH 31.62).

 

In 62 he was promoted to Prefect of the Praetorian Guard with Faenius Rufus (Hist. 1.72, Ann. 12.65, 14.51; Dio 62.13.3). Tacitus says that the death of Burrus marked the end of Seneca’s influence with Nero and the philosopher’s desire to go into retirement (Ann. 14.51-52). Tigellinus is not named as among those responsible for Seneca’s fall but there is little doubt he played a part since Seneca could no longer claim him as a supporter. [1] Tigellinus is presented by Tacitus as a second Sejanus and is painted in dark colors just as he portrays Seneca in a sympathetic light, particularly when compared to Dio’s less friendly version of events.  Tigellinus is accused of leading Nero further into debauchery and corruption.  As evidence, we have an infamous banquet that so scandalized Tacitus where the Prefect presided over the marriage of Nero and Sporus (Ann. 15.37; Dio 62.15, 63.13).  However, it is uncertain who is corrupting whom.  Seneca and Burrus had earlier attempted to prevent Nero from giving public performances, but they clearly were unable to dissuade him from doing what he wanted.  Dio termed Tigellinus as an appendage to Nero (63.12.3) and he had less authority than the combination of Seneca and Burrus, and so he may have followed Nero rather than initiating him into corruption.

 

 

 

                                                           

Octavia

 

The divorce of Octavia was carried out later in 62 when the empress was about 22 years old.  In the ten years she had been married no children had been born to the imperial couple, perhaps indicating lack of sexual relations with Nero. Octavia was popular with the people and Burrus liked to remind the emperor during prior divorce discussions that Nero would have to return her dowry: the empire (Ann. 14.7.4, 14.15; Dio 62.13).

 

The safest course open to Nero for a divorce was adultery, so Octavia was accused of having an affair with a flute playing slave from Alexandria named Eucaerus (Ann. 14.60).  Tigellinus attempted to extract confessions from Octavia’s maidservants, and since bribes did not break their loyalty, they were subjected to torture.  The majority of Octavia’s servants still refused to confess but, nevertheless, Octavia was found guilty and divorced (Ann. 14.60; Dio 62.13.4; Nero 35).  Nero gave her Burrus’ house along with the estates of Rubellius Plautus (Ann. 14.62-3).  Twelve days later, he married Poppaea.  Octavia, however, had many partisans in Rome who felt for her misfortune.  Crowds gathered at her house and the empress was cheered.  Nero was forced to give her a villa in Campania to get her out of the city.  Her departure caused a riot; the palace was under siege with demands to divorce Poppaea and reinstate Octavia.  At Poppaea’s insistence, Nero sent the Praetorians to disperse the mob.  Tacitus claims that Nero wavered in his decision to marry Poppaea and recalled Octavia, which mollified the populace and they appeared outside the palace to thank the emperor. But, now, Poppaea was furious (Ann. 14.60-61). 

 

Tacitus says that Poppaea wanted the former empress put to death and implored Nero saying their lives were threatened by Octavia’s supporters (Ann. 61.62).  Nero became frightened and agreed that Octavia had to die.  A story had to be invented to justify this murder and Anicetus, once again, came to the rescue.  He was summoned to Rome and given the choice of declaring he had been seduced by Octavia or death.  Naturally, he preferred to live and was to be rewarded for his cooperation with a comfortable exile.  Anicetus appeared before a court of inquiry and confessed that Octavia had seduced him in order to gain the navy for her plans to assassinate Nero (Ann. 14.62-63).  Octavia was sent to Pandateria and imprisoned in the same cell that the elder Agrippina had occupied.  Days later she received the order to kill herself. Unable to do the deed herself, the soldiers opened veins in her arms and legs but the blood just trickled from Octavia’s wounds.  To finish her, Octavia was carried into a steam bath where the warmth allowed her blood to flow. When she was dead, Octavia’s head was cut off and sent to Rome (Ann. 14.64).

   

                                                           

The Great Fire

 

Rome was regularly subject to fires as a consequence of timber construction, overcrowding and the scarcity of adequate fire fighting equipment.  The Great Fire broke out on July 19, 64 and raged for six days when, apparently under control, it flared up again for three more days. The fire began among the shops built around the Circus Maximus, where small traders lived and worked and was probably caused by a charcoal heater used to cook food.  The fire spread north along the eastern side of the Palatine Hill, through the Coloseum Valley to the lower portion of the Esquiline Hill. Nero was informed of the fire between one and two o’clock in the morning and told that the flames had reached the palace; Nero mounted a horse and galloped off.  When he reached the city, the newly completed palace, with the priceless collection of art it held, had been consumed by the fire.  Nero tried to save what he could and helped other victims of the fire (Ann. 15.38). Augustus had divided Rome into fourteen districts; the fire had leveled three (3, 10, 11) and only left four unscathed (1, 5, 6,14) (Ann. 15.38f.; Nero 38.2). [2] 

 

The scale and fury of the fire prompted a desire to blame someone. Nero was immediately suspected because the fire had restarted near Tigellinus’ estates.  Arson by Nero was directly alleged by Pliny the Elder, Suetonius and Dio, and was certainly believed during Nero’s reign.  Subrius Flavus, a Praetorian tribune who was later involved in the Pisonian conspiracy, named the fire as one of the reason why he broke his oath to Nero (NH 17.5; Nero 38; Dio 62.16.1; Ann. 15.67.2; Statius Silvae 2.7.60-1).  Tacitus says some people attributed the file to chance and mentions the stories that were current but does not accuse Nero of direct involvement (Ann. 15.40f.).  The Octavia (831-33) has Nero planning to set fire to Rome in revenge on the thankless population who had supported Octavia instead of the emperor when she was divorced.  Suetonius reports a conversation where the well known line “After my death, let the earth disappear in flames” was quoted.  Nero supposedly replied, “No, let it be during my lifetime” (Nero 38.1).  Dio says some men, pretending to be drunk, deliberately touched off fires in several places (62.16) and that the emperor’s own servants were involved. Rumors of arson were natural enough under the circumstances and Tacitus’ skepticism over them makes his account more impartial.

 

Rome was a crowded city with many narrow streets and alleys promoting filthy and unhealthy conditions.  Following the fire, Nero planned to create a city more suitable for the capital of the Empire.  The reconstruction forbade the hastily constructed buildings that were the cause of so much of the squalor.   The new buildings were to be built with a frontage that had been fixed by imperial surveyors.  The height of each building was limited to double the width of the street to allow for air and light.  Porticoes were placed in front of each house to provide shade from the sun and rain and squares were created to open up congested areas.  As for the buildings themselves, wooden ceilings were prohibited on the lower story.

 

Why would Nero want to set Rome afire?  Dio put the reason as a malicious act and Suetonius claimed Nero wanted to end the ugliness and chaos of Rome (Nero 38.1; Dio 62.16.1).  Nero had expressed dissatisfaction over the limits imposed on the building of his new palace and the rumored glee with which he returned to Rome from Antium and the reciting of his own “Capture of Ilium” as he watched the flames, lent credence to the rumors.  Ancient authors place this “performance” at different locations.  Tacitus says it was a private stage (Ann. 15.39.3) and Suetonius and Dio locate it in public with Nero dressed in a stage costume (Nero 38.2; Dio 62.18.1).

 

Nero attempted to quash the rumors that he was responsible by holding a leistenia to appease the gods.  But this was not enough – a human culprit had to be discovered. Only Tacitus makes the connection of the Christians with the fire (Ann. 15.38f). As to the extent of the persecution, he says that a multitudo ingens died in the persecution while Jerome sets the number at 979. But how did Nero come to select the Christians as scapegoats?  Until the reign of Nero the Romans probably did not distinguish between Jews and Christians, the latter being treated as an unpopular Jewish sect. Rome was generally tolerant of foreign religions.  The worship of Isis had been banned during Tiberius’ reign but found acceptance over time.  With both Jewish and Christian communities in Rome there probably was some friction between them.  Various persons close to the emperor have been accused of proposing the Christians as scapegoats and Nero, by himself, probably did not select the Christians since he was not aware of them as a distinct group. [3]

 

                                               

The Conspiracy of Piso

 

The plot against Nero that bears Piso’s name was poorly organized from the start and was planed without the participation of provincial governors or armies, as was the case with Caligula’s murder. L. Calpurnius Piso was a member of one of the few surviving Republican families.  He had surrendered his first wife Livia Orestilla to Caligula, was briefly exiled and recalled by Claudius.  He had held a suffect consulship sometime during Claudius’ reign and goverorships  but not a significant military command.  He was popular, a literary patron and had appeared in either the Juvenalia or Neronia.

 

As with the successful plot against Caligula, the members included senators, equestrians and members of the Praetorian Guard, including one of the Prefects. Lucan joined because he was forbidden to publish, Afranius Quintianus, because he had been insulted by a lampoon by Nero  and the Praetorian Prefect Faenius Rufus feared the influence of Tigellinus; consul-designate Plautius Laternas and his courageous freedwoman Epicharis were motivated by patriotism.  Faenius Rufus brought three tribunes and three centurions into the conspiracy from the Praetorians and represented the most serious defection from Nero. The military group of participants in the conspiracy existed as a separate group and only the leading conspirators knew all of those involved.  Unlike earlier conspiracies, plans were made for Piso to replace Nero. When the murder was accomplished, Piso would be conveyed to the Praetorian camp with Claudius’ daughter Antonia, who would lend legitimacy to his seizure of the government. 

 

The conspirators hesitated for some time over when to strike but one of the factors that forced them to act was that Poppaea was pregnant.  An heir to the throne would complicate the acceptance of Piso as Nero’s successor so further delay could not be allowed.  An opportunity arose when Nero paid a visit to Baiae in March 65.  Epicharis thought there might be a good opportunity to assassinate Nero aboard a ship, so she went to Misenum to find someone who might join the plot.  The nauarchus Volusius Proculus had participated in the murder of Agrippina and had been passed over for a promotion that embittered him (Ann. 15.51).  He readily agreed to join the plot but had second thoughts and informed the emperor. The freedwoman was summoned and vehemently denied Proculus’ accusation.  Epicharis had wisely mentioned no names to Proculus, so there was nobody who could be summoned to contradict her.  Nero believed Epicharis but had learned to take accusations seriously and had her detained.  When the conspirators learned of Epicharis’ arrest some still pressed to murder Nero at Baiae (Ann. 15.52). Nero was on familiar terms with Piso and often paid a visit to his villa at Baiae, located near the imperial villa, without his bodyguard.  With Nero placing himself in such a vulnerable position it was natural to suggest the murder be carried out in Piso's home.  But Piso refused because the murder would taint him with sacrilege in regard to his duty of hospitality (Ann. 15.68).

 

Eventually, it was decided to wait until the Ludi Cereales that began on April 12 and included games that went on for several days.  On the last day, April 19, there was chariot racing at the Circus Maximus over which Nero was to preside.  The place was ideal since access to Nero would be easy and his movements would be limited by the presence of a crowd.  Plautius Laternus, who had already enjoyed Nero’s clemency, was to present a petition to the emperor and grasp him by the knees to prevent him from avoiding the daggers of the assassins (Ann. 15.53).  Once the murder was accomplished, Faenius Rufus would escort Piso to the Praetorian camp. 

 

Flavius Scaevinus had requested to be the first to strike a blow, and when this was agreed he acted as if he had become Brutus and would be held in esteem by future generations.  At home, Scaevinus had a visit from Antonius Natalis, Piso’s go between, to settle the last details of the plans for the next day.  Then Scaevinus ordered a sumptuous meal, sealed his will and examined the dagger with which he intended to stab Nero.  It proved to be blunt so he gave it to his freedman Milichus to sharpen and settled down to dinner, but seemed depressed and affected good humor (Ann. 15.54).  After dinner, Scaevinus distributed presents and money to his domestic staff, freed some slaves and went to bed.  At the last moment, he called for Milichus and solemnly had him prepare dressings and all the necessary items to stop bleeding.  Milichus probably knew about the plot but not when Nero’s murder was to take place.  The actions of Scaevinus made him realize that the assassination would be the next day.  Milichus was unable to make up his mind if he should go along with the plot, so, dutiful husband that he was, Milichus asked his wife.  She, too, had noticed the strange behavior of Scaevinus and told her husband it was better to be the first to reveal the plot than a member when the conspiracy failed.

 

At dawn, Milichus presented himself at the Servilian gardens where it took some time for him to get the attention of one of the porters.  He was taken to Epaphroditus, then to Nero.  After listening to what the freedman had to say, the emperor sent for Scaevinus, who was awakened and hustled into Nero’s presence.  He defended himself calmly and complained that he was the victim of a disgruntled servant.  Nero was about to let Scaevinus go when Milichus asked for Natalis to be summoned, recalling that he had met with Scaevinus the day before.  In the meantime, Tigellinus arrived and took charge of the investigation: he sent for the executioner.

Natalis and Scaevinus were questioned separately and their stories were found to contradict.  They were brought before Nero but Tigellinus had them taken on a route that passed where the executioner was waiting, his murderous equipment on display. This served to frighten Natalis who confessed and named Piso and Seneca among the conspirators (Ann. 15.57). One by one, the conspirators were brought in for questioning and the plot was revealed.  At this point, the emperor remembered Epicharis and her confrontation with Proculus.  She was questioned at great length but refused to say anything and was handed over to the executioner, who burned Epicharis with red-hot irons and mercilessly whipped her.  She was racked until her joints were dislocated and bones broken, leaving her unable to stand.  Epicharis still said nothing and was imprisoned over night, but before the executioner could resume the next day, she strangled herself with a loose scarf that was bound about her breast (Ann. 15.57; Dio 62.27.3).

 

Nero was horrified by the defection of the Praetorians and feared the guards were ready to rise against him.   An inquiry was held and established that along with Faenius Rufus six tribunes and several centurions had participated in some degree in the conspiracy (Tacitus names three men: Sulpicius Asper, Maximus Scaurus and Venetus Paulus (Ann. 15.49-50)).  Only the centurions were executed, the tribunes were reduced in rank but two of them committed suicide out of shame.  Lucan is said to have died reciting his own poetry on the death of a soldier (De Bellum Civille 3.638-47).  Scaevinus died with similar courage but Tacitus remarked that the conspirators all died without having done or said anything memorable (Ann. 15.70).

 

The exact number of participants in the conspiracy was never established: seventeen people met their deaths (six executions and thirteen suicides), thirteen others were exiled (twelve senators and the wife of Scaevinus) and three were acquitted: Natalis, Proculus and Gaius Silvanus. The claim of Tacitus that Rome was choked with funerals is an exaggeration (Ann. 15.71).  Justice was administered with fairness with those most guilty paying the price. The disloyalty of the Praetorians alarmed Nero so much that he entrusted the delivery of the death order to Piso to new recruits and felt it necessary to buy the loyalty of the guards with a donative and a corn allowance (Ann. 15.59.4, 72.1).  To convince Nero of their loyalty the Senate offered to change the rename of the month of April (the month the conspiracy took place) to Neroneus and Anicius Cerialis suggested a temple be built to the divine Nero, an unprecedented honor: he refused both honors. Nero went to the Capitoline Hill where he dedicated the dagger Scaevinus was to stab him with in the temple of Jupiter.  Inscribed on the blade was “Jovi Vindici” (Ann.15.53, 74).

 

 

                                               

Britain and Armenia

 

Prasutagas, the king of the Iceni, died in 60 without male issue leaving his considerable fortune to his two daughters and Nero in his will.  In being so generous to the emperor, Prasutagas hoped his subjects would be treated well.  However, the procurator Deceanus Catus, who administered the will, proceeded to annex the territory using cruel and intimidating methods. Tribal noblemen were driven off their lands and Boudicca, Prasutages’ wife, was flogged and her daughters raped.  The Iceni had no desire to be directly under Roman control and rebelled. The rebel tribes were led by Queen Boudicca, portrayed by Dio as tall, red-haired and fierce looking, addressing her troops spear in hand (62.2.3-4). The revolt began at Camulodunum (Colchester) which had been a colony for Roman veterans for eleven years and was left unwalled because of the loyalty of the local tribes.  The Romanized Britons were slaughtered and the city was burned (Ann. 14.32). Paullinus, the Roman governor, was putting down the last resistance in southern Wales when the revolt broke out. The governor was concerned about protecting Londinium (London) but there were not enough soldiers to defend the city, which was also not walled, and London was abandoned and burned by the rebels. Tacitus says 70,000 people lost their lives (Ann. 14.33).

 

Eventually, the rebel tribes made the mistake of engaging the Romans in battle.  Paullinus had assembled XIV Gemina with detachments from XX Valeria Victrix and some auxiliary forces that numbered from 10,000 to 15,000, but were greatly outnumbered by the tribes, numbering 230,000 by Dio’s reckoning (62.8.2; Ann. 14.34-37).  By maintaining discipline the Romans decisively defeated the tribes (Dio 62.12).  It was reported that 80,000 rebels were killed but only 400 Romans lost their lives.  Boudicca committed suicide or, according to Dio, fell sick and died  (62.12.6). The tribes, now leaderless, were pacified and Paullinus carried out vicious reprisals against the Britons. Nero sent his freedman Polyclitus and the procurator Julius Classicianus to investigate the causes of the rebellion and they reported back that a governor with better diplomatic skills was required.  Nero promptly recalled Paullinus, honoring his achievements, and sent Petronius Turpilianus (61-63), a mild administrator for a province that badly needed to be healed (Ann. 14.38-39). 

                                                           

The eastern frontier demanded most of Nero’s attention and initiative in the ongoing problem of Armenia. Due to unrest during Claudius’ reign, the Parthian king Vologases was able to place his brother Tiridates on the Armenian throne. Early in Nero’s reign, a delegation of Armenians visited Rome and asked for help to remove the Parthians. Preparations for war were set into motion and the legions of Syria were brought up to strength with new recruitment. The governor of Syria, Ummidus Quadratus, remained at his post but the course of events would be shaped by a new man: Cn. Domitius Corbulo, who was appointed as special governor of Cappadocia-Galatia in 54-5 (Ann. 13.8).  Rather than proceed with the outright conquest of Armenia, Nero’s government decided on a different approach whereby Rome would recognize Tiridates as king if the Parthian would acknowledge Nero as his overlord.  This was not immediately acceptable to Tiridates, so over the years that followed diplomacy was mixed with force of arms to come to a settlement for the region. In 60, Corbulo conquered Armenia, during which the ancient capitol of Ataxata was burned, and a Roman selected  king was placed on the throne, but was unacceptable to the Armenians. Eventually, in 64, Tiridates agreed to accept his diadem from the hands of Nero. During the many years Corbulo spent in the East, he never had to fight a pitched battle. The secret of his success was patience and his appreciation of the military situation. He also understood that Rome had expanded as far as it could: if Parthia was conquered, it could not be held.  Nero can be credited for recognizing Corbulo’s capabilities and for his eleven years of support, during which the general wielded greater power and had more troops under his command than anyone outside the imperial family.

 

The agreement with Tiridates allowed Nero to close the doors on the temple of Janus, signifying peace throughout the empire, and celebrated the event on his coinage.  But Tiridates was in no hurry to abase himself before Nero, and his visit may have been postponed by the Great Fire, the Pisonian conspiracy or the death of Poppaea.  When Tiridates finally did reach Rome in 66, Nero received an imperial acclimation (his 11^th) and deposited a laurel wreath before the statue of Jupiter on the Capitol as if he had won a triumph (Nero 11). The special significance of this salutation was made apparent when Nero added imperator to his praenomen. 

 

 

                                   

The Second Neronia and the Death of Poppaea

 

Tacitus refers to the Neronia as a quinquennial contest apparently to celebrate the end of a five-year period in Nero’s reign (Ann. 16.4).  But the historian is incorrect since the first Neronia should have been celebrated in 59 not 60.  Greek and Roman religious festivals were typically held every four years.  Quinquennalis refers to a four-year period because the Romans counted the first and last years of the festival while in modern times we would only count the year of the festival. The later Capitoline games, initiated by Domitian (and based upon the Neronia), was held every four years and was termed a quinquennale certamen by Suetonius (Dom. 4.4). 

 

There is some confusion over when the second Neronia was celebrated. Suetonius relates that, in 64, Nero, after his great success performing at Naples, went to Rome where he ordered that the Neronia be held before it was due (Nero 21.1).  When he had performed to his satisfaction, Nero postponed the remainder of the festival until the following year and put off the awarding of the prize because he wanted an excuse to sing more often (Nero 21.2).  One wonders why Nero would not have come up with other opportunities to sing and why he would be willing to wait a year to resume an unfinished festival.  This vacillation by Nero could be due to his capricious nature or confusion over events. Tacitus reports the holding of the Neronia with no comment on a postponement.  He relates that after his performance at Naples, Nero intended to go to Achaia to perform at the Greek festivals to gain respect in the eyes of the Romans for the victories he would win (Ann. 15.33).  Nero traveled as far as Beneventum where he attended a gladiatorial show and eventually abandoned the idea of going to Greece.  At this point, Nero returned to Rome and would have had an opportunity to hold the Neronia as Suetonius relates.  However, Nero proceeded to plan a journey to Egypt and the eastern provinces until a mysterious visit to the temple of Vesta that led him to cancel this proposed trip.  Nero may have postponed the Neronia to make way for his abortive trip Egypt.  As compensation, perhaps, for the cancelled games, Nero held several banquets in Rome for the populace before returning to Naples (Ann. 15.35-36).

 

The Senate, to avoid having the emperor to perform in public, offered him the prize for eloquence and singing prior to the festival.  Nero received the suggestion badly, refusing the honor and declaring that he intended to compete on an equal footing with his rivals and let the jury decide who deserved the crown (Ann. 16.4).  Nero recited a poem on stage but apparently had no desire to compete as a singer.  But he allowed himself to be persuaded to join the singing competition when the crowd and his augustiani called for him to perform. Nero observed all of the competition rules, having his name inscribed as a competitor and dressing in the proper attire; he won the competition and was given an ovation (Ann. 16.4).

 

Just as the games were concluding, Poppaea died (Dio 62.28.1).  Tacitus finds the suggestion that Nero poisoned her to be absurd, especially since she was pregnant and the emperor desperately wanted the child (Ann. 16.6).  The tale most often repeated was that Poppaea reproached Nero when he returned late from a chariot race and, in a fit of temper, kicked her in the stomach and caused a miscarriage and her death.  Nero did not habitually have such attacks of blinding rage and Poppaea is cast as a nagging wife, having more to do with a comic scene gone tragic than reality. Nero was devastated.  Poppaea had not, like Messalina and Agrippina before her, been involved in political intrigue and been completely faithful to Nero.  The empress was given a magnificent funeral.  Her body was taken to the Forum Romanum where Nero delivered the oration.  She was not consigned to the flames but was embalmed and buried in the mausoleum of Augustus.  Pliny says that all of the perfumes produced in Arabia in one year could not equal the amount Nero lavished on Poppaea (NH 12.83).

 

 

                                                           

Festivals

 

A highly criticized aspect of Nero was his reported gluttony and that he was a drunkard.  He began to indulge his passion for food and drink while still young.  Dio marks the beginning of Nero’s cruelty when his moderate attitude to eating, drinking and sex underwent a change toward indulgence (61.4.3).  Suetonius also noted Nero’s taste for prolonged banquets taking place at midday instead of the usual early evening.

 

Emperors were expected to hold feasts for the people of Rome on holidays and religious festivals. Extravagance and generosity was considered a display of imperial virtue, demonstrating the emperor’s liberality. Banquets were also held to honor the emperor’s birthday, to mark his accession and some were given just to satisfy the plebs (Dio 54.26.2, 55.2.4, 55.8).   The attendance of the emperor at these feasts was a sign of his virtue to closely associate with his people, a show of unity between the orders.  Caligula once feasted the Senate and the equestrians and their wives (Gaius 17; Dio  59.11.3).  These dinners were meant to foster good relations with the emperor and by feasting the senators in style, the emperor showed his high esteem.  This does not mean there was no criticism for an emperor who indulged in too much food and drink.  Vitellius was criticized for his excesses at the table with Suetonius decrying his sacrilegious appetite (Vit. 13). Ancient sources accuse Nero of spending too much time eating and drinking, which interfered with his attending to the business of state and, worse, the emperor  would be so drunk during his dinners that Agrippina could work her will (Ann. 14.2).  Oddly enough, Nero’s famous decocta Neronis, water that was boiled, then cooled in snow, was neither alcoholic nor outrageously extravagant.

 

A more revealing criticism of Nero’s dinners comes from the hostility of the elite members of Roman society being shut out of the emperor’s convivia.  Rather than using these occasions to promote good relations with senators and equestrians Nero creates a gulf by excluding them.  The preferred invitees for his private dinners were poets and philosophers (Ann. 14.16), but Nero was also criticized for his frequenting public eating-houses.  Dio commented on the double standard he set for spending so much time in taverns and then regulating how much food and drink they could sell (61.8.1, 62.14.2; Nero 26).  The worst part of these nocturnal visits for Suetonius was that the emperor lowered himself to dress like a freedman or pleb so he could enter these popinae (taverns) unrecognized.  Popinae were places of low living, a meeting place of prostitutes, gladiators and thieves, places that were subjected to legal regulation.

 

Nero’s public feasts drew the same criticism for demonstrating his attachment to the plebs.  Luxury was being provided for the commoners but not for the more deserving elite. The banquet that was found most offensive was hosted by Tigellinus and held at a lake on a fabulously decorated raft. On the shore, noble women occupied brothels set up for the pleasure of the plebs and, to top it off,  Nero married his freedman Pythagorus.  By forcing noble women to act as prostitutes the emperor forced the immoral life of the commoners on the elite. Tacitus juxtaposed the sumptuous floating banquet with the Great Fire that followed, suggesting the degradation of the former was purged by the fire (Nero 27; Ann. 15.37-38; Dio 61.20.5, 62.15.1-6).  Nero directed his energies toward the populace because he thought he could find affection and popularity at the expense of the senators.  When Nero took the stage to perform, he wanted the sympathetic ears of the people, not the scorn of the elite.  Suetonius accused Nero of being carried away by a craze for popularity and was jealous of anyone who might threaten the feeling of the plebs for him (Nero 53).  Augustus is reported to have dressed up once a year as a beggar to solicit money from passers by and he also enjoyed watching street fighting (Aug. 45; Dio 54.35.3).  Such a desire to fraternize with the common people was not criticized in Augustus, and Nero is the only example where doing this activity is considered hostile.

 

 

© David A Wend 2003