Nero: The end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (Part III)
The big fire of Rome (known in Latin as Incendium Magnum Romae) 18th July of 64 (Roman year 817)
From 'The Annals' by Tacitus: "Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Maecenas.
To relieve the homeless he opened the Campus Martius, the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns.
After five days, an end was put to the conflagration at the foot of the Esquiline hill.
But before people had laid aside their fears, the flames returned, with no less fury this second time, and especially in the spacious districts of the city. Although there was less loss of life, the temples of the gods, and the porticoes which were devoted to enjoyment, fell in a yet more widespread ruin.
Rome, indeed, is divided into fourteen districts, four of which remained uninjured, three were levelled to the ground, while in the other seven were left only a few shattered, half-burnt relics of houses.
Some people noticed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 18th of July, the day on which the Senones (Gallic tribe) attacked Rome. Others have pushed a curious inquiry so far as to reduce the interval between these two conflagrations into equal numbers of years, months, and days."
Tacitus also writes that the favorable things that Nero did were soon nullified, for a rumor spread that he was singing and playing the lyre while Rome burned. Tacitus himself doesn't believe it but he assures that it was such rumor caused another event in Rome.
'Nero's Torches' (detail) by Henryk Siemiradzk, 1876
"Therefore, to put an end to this rumor, Nero invented culprits and subjected to very refined punishments those whom the populace, detesting them for their atrocities, called Christians. The origin of this name was the so-called Christ, who under the reign of Tiberius had been condemned to torture and crucifixion by the Prefect Pontius Pilate. This fatal superstition spread not only through Judea, the focus of this disease, but also through Rome, where everything vile and shameful gathers.
At first those who confessed were arrested, then, after their denunciation, a huge crowd was condemned, not so much for the accusation of the fire, but for hatred of the human race.
In addition, the mockery of those who were going to die was added: covered in wild skins, they died torn to pieces by dogs, or were crucified or burned alive as torches.
Although they were criminals, deserving of very severe punishments, a feeling of pity arose, since they were murdered not for the common good, but for the ferocity of a single man." (Tacitus)
'A Christian Dirce' (detail) by Henryk Siemiradzki , 1897
First, let's see what Tacitus means by "criminals" hated for their "atrocities." The Christian community in Rome was small. They were mainly slaves, freedmen, and converted Jews of humble origins like their leader, the apostle Peter. The Roman pleb knew that in their meetings Christians drank and ate saying it was "the body and blood." Out of ignorance, they believed that they sacrificed someone to a God, and then ate the flesh and drank the blood of the supposed victim. By the middle of the second century such accusations were no longer made, and Christianity was frowned upon, and sometimes persecuted, only for its βideas harmful to the Stateβ.
Was this really the first persecution of Christianity?
It's true that those innocent people were accused because they were part of a misunderstood and hated minority, but Tacitus says that they were accused and executed for supposedly burning Rome not for believing in Christ; And he claims that they were not even executed for their "atrocities", that is, for their religious gatherings, so it was not a persecution against Christianity at all.
The Catholic Church, which keeps a rigorous record of all its martyrs, doesn't have the names of the Christians mentioned by Tacitus recorded. The only ones recognized are the apostles Peter and Paul, who were certainly imprisoned and executed, Saint Peter for being the Leader/Bishop of the Christians of Rome and Saint Paul for being very prominent. This is probably why Nero is considered the first enemy and persecutor of Christianity in history.
'Nero at Baiae' by Jan Styka, circa 1900
Tacitus, who in addition to being a historian was an important Senator in an anti-Neronian atmosphere, writes subjective sentences and inevitably leads me to question some parts of his text.
When Tacitus writes "A huge crowd was condemned, not so much for the accusation of the fire, but for hatred of the human race", he's expressing an opinion about Nero; in the same way when he says that was "not for the common good but for the ferocity of a single man"; Are opinions, not facts. Undoubtedly there were public executions but the reasons for them arise from the opinion and feelings of Tacitus.
The subjectivity of this writer makes me think that he added sensational details to the executions to make it clear to his contemporary readers that Nero had been a deranged ruler; Since he establishes (according to his personal opinion) that Nero was more interested in having fun killing people than in the misfortune of Rome after the fire.
Certainly there were crucifixions of slaves and foreigners, and beheadings of Christian Roman citizens, such as the apostle Paul who was beheaded for having Roman citizenship while apostle Peter was crucified for being a foreigner. And perhaps there have been people burned alive, although this was never the usual death penalty in the Roman world.
My biggest doubt: Was it really Nero who accused the Christians?
'Nero Views the Burning of Rome' by Carl Theodor von Piloty , 1861
Tacitus writes that emperor helped the victims of the fire, offering them their own properties, providing them with food and lodging: he was in charge of the reconstruction work, etc. But after being forced to mention something good for the only time, he disqualifies those actions by adding:
These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy; comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity. (The Annals XV)
The historian claims that the emperor returned to the city to help in the disaster and many people benefited but then he says that a rumor claimed that emperor was singing on a private stage.
Is it possible that people in Rome who had seen Nero in action believed that? Or could it be that such a rumor never existed but was created by the historian when writing about that chapter of history?
"Therefore, to put an end to this rumor, Nero invented culprits." And so the writer begins to explain why those executions happened: what today we would call scapegoat, and also adds a second reason: "hatred of the human race."
In other words, according to Tacitus Nero he didn't act out of justice, or what he thought was justice, but out of a selfish reason and for fun. But Tacitus also says that Nero's scapegoat was those "detested by the populace."
So, isn't it more credible to think that someone among the immense populace could have accused the Christians of burning the city precisely because they was hated?
Is it possible that the false accusation reached Nero directly and that this was the true reason for the arrests and executions?
Is it credible that Nero, having the vast majority of the people in his favor and a minority that was already hated without him saying or doing anything, acted in such a way that his people ultimately felt sorry for the condemned?
Perhaps someone or a group of people, out of prejudice or hatred, convinced the emperor that the fire was not accidental but caused by the Christians. The accusers before Nero, for example, may have been some of his praetorian guards; or a simple commoner who publicly accused a neighboring Christian and that's how it all started. Who knows.
It's important to ask questions, think and then draw conclusions, rather than accepting the official story without hesitation.
'The Fire of Rome, 18 July 64 AD ' by Hubert Robert, 18th century
