DG 285 
 
 .,'iil 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Alii' f* 
 
 :!IUI'!.).)lHJ{!t 
 
 5iM »^^^'' v^ilf i''^?'' ''I 
 
^^-^-^ 
 
 i^9^ 
 
 ?> y-^K 
 
 ^^ * • - * -v^ 
 
 ♦ 0^ V'"?^->' "°^-'--\*^ 
 
 '.-^^^Z 
 
 .V 
 
 
 .*^^-. 
 
 
 
 
 ^' -^ 
 
 ^^& 
 
 
 ■<*, 
 
 
 n* . » " • » \p 
 
 r.^^.-' y ^o. ^-TT/-' aO 
 
 -0* - " - 
 
 '^ ' » - o ' ^^ 
 
 
 
 ->!eV^'. ^. ^-^ . 
 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 s- 
 
 
 ^ * 
 
 0^ ^ 
 
 0^ *!ZnL'* ^ 
 
 
 <r^ ' o » » 
 
 
 
 
 >5^x. 
 
 ^ ♦ 
 
 • .v^ 
 
 .M>-y. *, 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 •'^. 
 
 
 i5 °-«. '.". 
 
 
 
 ^*'% 
 
 
 1^ . » • • ' 
 
 V" -^ ^\,i^<^. 
 
 
 O " 
 
 -., s* 
 
 ■*U.o< 
 
 ^•to*. 
 
 O Q J 
 
 -"♦ v^ 
 
>^^ *- « - O ^ ^"<^ 
 
 <r ^ 
 
 
 
 ■'Vs C^ ♦ ^ 
 
 
 ^,* ^^ ^^ 
 
 '^^v 
 v-^. 
 
 
 -5^^W- ?f "'I 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ ^^ 
 
 '- Ta 
 
 \5 
 
 
 
 •\ ^"^N. ^^^- /\ '-W/ ;^v^\ •#■ 
 
 
 4 o 
 
^P-r^^ 
 
 
 
 r^v*' 
 
 "* 
 
 *' 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 U^' 
 
 t' 
 
L 
 
.ViK" 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 «' 
 
mi:r 
 
 
 ^^■■»»»»»i 
 
 THE SOURCES OF 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE 
 EMPEROR NERO 
 
 By 
 
 John Nicholas Henry Jahn, Ph. D. 
 
 I 
 
 
i 
 
 
 
 .-> 
 
 ^i-' 
 
 '.•^^J 
 
 R^ 
 
A CRITICAL STUDY 
 
 of 
 THE SOURCES OF 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE 
 EMPEROR NERO 
 
 by 
 
 John Nicholas Henry Jahn, Ph. D. 
 
 u 
 
 Submitted 
 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHII.OSOPHY 
 
 at 
 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 
 
 May, 1920 
 

 To 
 
 DOCTOR ERNEST GOTTLIEB SIHLER 
 
 Professor of the Latin Language and Literature 
 in the New York University 
 
 The Eminent Scholar and Teacher 
 
 and to 
 
 JULIA GERTRUDE JAHN 
 My Faithful Wife 
 
 This Little Book Is Gratefully Inscribed 
 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction 5 
 
 The Annai^ of Tacitus 7 
 
 The I#i^ of Nero by Suetonius 20 
 
 The History of Nero by Dio Cassius 27 
 
 Inscriptions 38 
 
 Coins 39 
 
 Bibwography — 43 
 
J 
 
Introduction 
 
 Our sources of the history of Nero and his reign are not very 
 numerous. 
 
 Fortunately, we have the works of three of the historians who 
 wrote on this period at a time that was not so remote as to 
 render their records of little value. (Chapters XII-XVI of the 
 Annals of Tacitus (c. 55-120 A. D.) cover the reign of Nero to 
 the year 66 A. D., including his relation to Claudius during the 
 last years of that emperor, and are so far complete. The Life 
 of Nero by Suetonius (c.75-160 A. D.) has come down to us 
 entire. Of the History of Nero by Dio Cassius (born 155 
 A. D.) in his Roman History, Books 61-63, we have only the 
 abridgment of Xiphilinus and the extracts, of Zonaras. Xiphili- 
 nus was a monk of the eleventh century who at the request of 
 Michael VH (1071-78) v/rote an epitome of Books 36-80 of the 
 History of Dio Cassius, the last twenty of which would other- 
 wise have been lost. Considering Dio's mode of writing, we are 
 inclined to think that by the abridgment not much of the sub- 
 stance of the original work has beeen lost.^ Moreover, the work 
 of Johannes Zonaras, a Byzantine historian of the middle of the , 
 
 twelfth century, in his Epitome of History (from creation tD (/ 
 
 1118 A. D.), as far as the history of Nero and other Roman 
 emperors is concerned, consists in the main of excerpts from 
 Dio, and thus he supplies in the passages that can be recognized 
 as such, some of the parts that are lacking in the abridgment of 
 Xiphilinus. 
 
 There are but a few other sources, and tliese are all quite 
 meager, as far at least as the history of the emperor is con- 
 cerned. A few fragments of early Roman historians remain. - 
 A small number of inscriptions has been preserved,^ and a larger 
 number of Roman and other coins of that period.'* The work 
 of Josephus (b. 37 A. D.) on the Antiquities of the Jews ex- 
 tends to the twelfth year of Nero's reign; but it is, in the first 
 place, a history of the Jewish people, and then the work was 
 written by the Flavian courtier with tlie intention to create among 
 the Greeks and Romans a higher opinion of his despised people.^ 
 and, on the other hand, the author was profuse in the flattery of 
 his patrons,^ among whom Poppaea, the wife of Nero, had been. 
 and whenever there was an occasion to flatter he was not mucli 
 concerned about the truth.' Euscbius of Caesarea (died 340 
 
 'Sandys, Hi^st. ol' Lat. Scholarship I. 117. 
 
 *Peter, Hi^torirornm Rom. I'rasmon'La. 
 
 »Jani Gruteri Inscriptione.s Antiquae. 
 
 * Joseph Eckhel, Doctrina Xuinoruni Vetoium. 
 
 •Pauly, Real-encl. d. kl. Allort.. Josephus. 
 
 "Cp. the concluding remark In liis Autobiogi-aphy. <.,'h. Tii. 
 
 TPeter, Die ffesch. Lit.. I. 398. 
 
A. D.) supplies information on the history of the Christian 
 Church under Nero,^ especially on the first imperial persecution 
 of the Christians.^ The History of Orosius, a Spanish priest, 
 who about 414 A. D. went to Hippo and by Augustine was as- 
 signed the task of supplementing the "City of God" by a review 
 of history for the purpose of disproving the pagan assertion that 
 the fall of Rome was a consequence of her abandonment of the 
 old religion of the state, has little or no value as a source of the 
 history of Nero, which is touched upon in the last of the seven 
 books of the work. For he generally handles the facts in an 
 arbitrary and uncritical way to suit his theological purpose,^ 
 accepting mere legend as though it were authentic history.'* 
 
 A study of the sources of the history of Nero must therefore 
 in the main be limited to the works of Tacitus. Suetonius, and 
 Dio Cassius. 
 
 While it is not altogether futile to attempt to determine what 
 sources these writers again used when composing their works, 
 and to investigate to what extent they used them,^ it 
 is vastly more profitable to the student of history to 
 carefully compare the records of these writers with each other 
 and with the few other sources that have come down to us. 
 With due consideration of the author's character and life, his 
 method, and the connection in which his statements appear, such 
 a comparison will afford a fairly safe basis for correct judg- 
 ments on the conditions and events which they record. 
 
 The writer believed himself justified in omitting almost entire- 
 ly from the present study such authors as did not write directly 
 on Nero and his reign, but from v<;hose works nevertheless ma- 
 terial of some importance might be gathered, as Seneca, Pliny 
 the Elder, Plutarch (Life of Galba), Martial, Statins. Lucan, 
 Persius, and Petronius, and the Christian writers. 
 
 'Eu»eb.. Hiart. occl. 2. 20. .sWi. 
 
 •2, 26. 
 
 •Sam. Dill, Roman Society, p. 66 scq. 
 
 *Cp. Oro.sIu8 15. 4. The exploits of the Amaxons. 
 
 »0. Clason. Tac. und Suet., elne verffleichende Unterauchung' mil Rueckslcht 
 
 auf die beidereeltlgen Quellen. Jan Berfonans. Die Quellen der VltA 
 
 Tiber! i dejt CaaaIus Dlo. 
 
 Page six 
 
Tacitus 
 
 With regard to Tacitus, the earhest of our Hterary sources of 
 the history of Nero, opposite views have prevailed among 
 scholars. 
 
 Prof. Wilkins has given the view of the one side as follows: 
 "As a historian. Tacitus cannot be considered impartial. The 
 story of the reign of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero is told 
 throughout from a standpoint of bitter hostility. Not that 
 Tacitus is often consciously unfair. But the coloring which he 
 gives to his facts, and especially the suggestion of motives in 
 which he indulges, show the satirist rather than the historian. 
 The emperors are to him mainly the enemies of the senate, in 
 which he fancied he could find what still remained of old Roman 
 freedom and virtue. Their undoubted services to the cause of 
 peace and good government throughout the civilized world arc 
 lightly touched; every instance of jealousy and caprice in dealing 
 with the nobles of the capitol is dwelt upon. Often the sources 
 from which he drew his accounts are suspicious ; and he shows 
 but little critical faculty in testing them. The desire for effect 
 leads him to paint his picture of men and things in colors far too 
 glaring and sharply contrasted to be true to nature. He lived in 
 an age of satire ; and the last thing that we expect from a satir- 
 ist, saddened by his own experience of Ufe, is a fair and well- 
 balanced judgment."^ 
 
 Nipperdey, summarizing the view of the opposite side, says of 
 this criticism : "Diesen Angriffen kann nur zmTi. ausserst ge- 
 ringen Teil — eine Berechtigung zugestanden werden — ; sie be- 
 ruhen fast durchaus nicht auf klaren festen Beweisen, wie sie 
 die Sache erfordcrt, sondern auf willkuerlichen Annahmen und 
 subjektivem Ermessen, zum nicht geringen Teil auf Irrtuem.ern 
 und Entstellungen, auf einer Yoreingenommenheit, welche selbst 
 das am naechsten IJegende und Einfachste nicht erkennen 
 laesst."2 
 
 When eminent scholars disagree, an attempt to form an in- 
 dependent judgment, however humble, will appear the more 
 fully justified. 
 
 The Sources of Tacitiis 
 
 In his history of the emperor Nero, Tacitus refers to and 
 quotes from numerous sources. 
 
 There are references like these: adnotant seniores, tradunt 
 plerique scriptores, sunt qui tradiderint, sunt qui abnuant. plures 
 
 'A. S. Wilkirs. Rem. I At. p. liu. 
 -C. Tacitu.s, Einl. p. 31. 
 
 Page srmi 
 
asseverabant, auctores prodidere, tradidere quidam, quidam 
 scriptores.* It is, of course, a question whether all of these ex- 
 pressions refer to writers ; but very likely they do, since Ann. 
 14, 2. the distinction i«: maH** between the writers named, other 
 writers, and tradition (fama). The remark of Tacitus an his 
 history of Augustus, made twice, that he had recourse to sources 
 which other writers had overlooked,^ shows that he made the 
 most extensive use of the works of others. 
 
 Seldom does he mention any historians by name. In the his- 
 tory of Nero mention is made of Fabius Rusticus, Pliny the 
 Elder, and Cluvius f then Fabius and Cluvius are mentioned to- 
 gether;* then Domitius Corbulo. Pliny the Elder, and Fabius are 
 mentioned singly.^ 
 
 Fabius Rusticus was an older contemporar}' of Tacitus,^ who 
 ranks him with Livy, calling him "recentium eloquentissimus 
 auctor."^ He was a friend of Seneca, to whose patronage he 
 owed much.* 
 
 Cluvius Rufus was also an older contemporary of Tacitus, as 
 he had already been consul under Galigula.^ He announced 
 Nero's first public appearance as a singer in Rome,^^ and if Dio 
 is not mistaken, he 'served the emperor in the same capacity on 
 his tour in Greece in the year 67}^ This would go to show that 
 Cluvius enjoyed the favor of Nero almost to the end of his 
 reign, and very likely never lost it. Tacitus calls him "facundus 
 et pacis artibus, bellis inexpertus."^^ He was considered a his- 
 torian of first rank. Pliny praises his impartiality,^' and Tacitus 
 ranks him with or above Fabius Rusticus.^* 
 
 Pliny the Elder (23-79 A. D.) continued the history of 
 Aufidius Bassus. In this work was included the time of Nero.^*^ 
 His trustworthiness in determining the facts^^ is generally ad- 
 mitted. 
 
 That Tacitus used the works of these three historians above 
 others when writing the history of Nero, is apparent from the 
 fact that more than once he records their divergent statements. 
 
 'Ann. 13. 3; 13, 17: 14. 10: 14. 51: 15. 38: 15. 45: 16. 6. 
 
 'Ann. 4. 53; 6.7. 
 
 •Ann. 13. 20. 
 
 ♦Ann. 14. 2. 
 
 'Ann. 15. 16; 15. 53: 15. 61. , 
 
 •Ann. 13. 20. 
 
 'Ag-r. 10. 
 
 "Ann. 13. 20. 
 
 •Josephus. Antlq. 19. 1. 13. 
 '"Suet. Ner. 21. 
 "Dlo C. 63. 20. 
 
 "Hflt. 1. 9. , 
 
 ••Ep. 9. 19. 5. I 
 
 '•Ann. 13. 20; 14. 2. ' 
 
 'Plin. n. h., praef. 20. 
 "Plln. ep. 5. 8. 5. ) 
 
 Page eight 
 
Cn. Domitius Corbulo wrote memodrs on the Armenian war 
 (55-63 A. D.), which he conducted. The elder Pliny refers to 
 this work several times in his Natural History.^ It was at least 
 first-hand information. 
 
 Besides the works of these historians Tacitus consulted vari- 
 ous documents, such as the journals of the senate^ and those of 
 the City,^ the decrees of the emperor, and the records of the 
 courts. The "publica acta" referred to Ann. 12, 24. Nipperdey 
 takes to be inscriptions. Documents that were being preserved 
 in the imperial archives are not mentioned; it may be assumed 
 that Tacitus had no access to these. 
 
 Use of Sources 
 
 The Principle of Consensus 
 
 How did Tacitus use his sources? He has himself stated h:s 
 method. "We shall follow the consensus of authors, and where 
 they differ, we shall relate what each records under his name.""^ 
 The word "auctorum" has caused some difficulty. Does he mean 
 all the authors? How then can we explain that in several in- 
 stances he introduces divergent opinions with a mere "quidam," 
 "sunt qui," etc.? In fact, in books 13-16 only Corbulo is men- 
 tioned as an authority besides Fabius, Cluvius, and Pliny. It 
 has therefore been suggested that "horum" has been omitted 
 before "auctorum."^ This would be a simple solution; but it 
 seems too radical. Could a citation introduced by "quidam," 
 etc., not also be said to be, in a sense, "sub nominibus ipsorum" 
 (nomine ipsorum) ? The use of the phrase in this sense would, 
 we must admit, be unusual f but it is not impossible.'^ 
 
 If we may take it in this sense, Tacitus means to say that in 
 case his sources differ be will not record the one view only 
 which to him seems the correct one, thus making a statement on 
 his own authority, but that he will state the different views ; if 
 the historians are well known, he will mention their names, 
 otherwise he will refer to them in an indefinite way. 
 
 However that may be, Tacitus was guided in the use of his 
 sources by the consensus of the authors, at least as far as the 
 history of Nero is concerned.^ It may seem strange, even 
 though we limit the use of this principle to the history of Nero, 
 that lit was not stated before. But the historians of antiquity did 
 
 '2, 180; 5, 8S: (>. 2:^ 
 
 •^Ann. 15, 74. 
 
 »Ann. 3, 3. 
 
 ♦Ann. 13. 20. 
 
 * Nipperdey, Einl. p. 21. 
 
 "Cf. A. Draeger, lleber S>iiLax u. Stil d. Tai-. 
 
 'Ann. 13, 25: sub nomine Neionis. 
 
 "Cp. Ann. 14, 9: Haec consensu produntur. 
 
 Paqe nine 
 
not preface their works with a chapter on the principles and 
 methods of historiography. Remarks on this subject must be 
 expected to have been made by the way, when an occasion called 
 for an explanation of the ai^^hor's view. This is the first occa- 
 sion of the kind in the history of Nero to which the principle 
 clearly applies. 
 
 Tacitus then did not use the m.ethod attributed to some other 
 ancient historians, to follow in the main one author and to use 
 all the other works at his disposal as secondary sources for the 
 purpose of supplementing or correcting. For this reason he 
 must be ranked higher than some other ancient historians. 
 
 Clason^ has attempted to prove that Tacitus after all fol- 
 lowed the customar}' method with regard to the use of his 
 sources, with this diflference only that he based his work on three 
 sources, Fabius, Cluvius, and Pliny — a triune source he calls it 
 — ^instead of one. But would this not practically amount to the 
 modem method? Strange that the very first example adduced 
 by Clason to support his theory^ shows that other sources re- 
 ceived considerable attention, while Pliny is not even mentioned. 
 Clason does not hesitate to say that Pliny's name must here be 
 understood as associated with that of Cluvius, and elsewhere^ he 
 would even have it associated with the unnamed Cluvius.'* This 
 will, of course, not do. 
 
 We have every reason to believe that Tacitus based his history 
 of Nero on the works of all the earlier writers v;ho had recorded 
 the history of that period. This, together with the fact that he 
 was their contemporary and wrote not many years after their 
 works had been pubhshed, and at a time when data on which 
 they disagreed could easily be investigated, lends much authority 
 to the work of Tacitus. 
 
 Critical Use of Sources 
 
 Nor was Tacitus uncritical in the use of these sources. 
 
 Fabius, Pliny, and Cluvius disagree on the dismissal of Burrus 
 and his subsequent retention in office upon the request of 
 Seneca.*^ Tacitus here not only considers the consensus of Pliny 
 and Cluvius over against Fabius, but is inclined to disbelieve 
 Fabius because of his relation to Seneca, to whose favor Fabius 
 owed his position.* 
 
 'Clason. Tacitu.s und Sueton. p. 11. 
 
 ».\nn. 14. 2 
 
 •15. 61. 
 
 H'l;i;on. T.ic. u. Su«rt. p. 14. 
 
 •Ajnn. 13, 20. 
 
 •Sitne P'^hhiP Inriinxt sid la.ude.M SwiecAt.-, cuJus amldtla ttorult. 
 
 Page ten 
 
Again, Tacitus rejects the testimony of Fabius in regard to 
 the incestuous approaches between Nero and Agrippina. While 
 Fabius ascribes them to Nero's passion, Cluvius says they were 
 a part of Agrippina's plan to regain her former influence over 
 the prince, and with him the other writers agree and to this view 
 tradition incHnes.^ 
 
 The third instance in which Fabius is named regards the death 
 of Seneca.^ Tacitus says that according to Fabius the tribune 
 sent to announce to Seneca his doom hesitated to execute the 
 emperor's command, and, in order to avoid a meeting with 
 Seneca, sent a centurion to apprise him of Nero's will. Fabius, 
 on account of his friendship to Seneca, might indeed be supposed 
 to have gathered reliable information on the great philosopher's 
 death;* but must he not again be suspected of being partial to 
 Seneca in portraying that "want of spirit" which was found in 
 all but Seneca and a few others? However, as there are no 
 divergent reports on this point to confirm the suspicion, Tacitus 
 abstains from uttering it, merely citing Fabius on the incident 
 and withholding his own judgment. 
 
 The same critical use he made of Pliny. In 13, 12. Pliny's 
 testimony is accepted, because it agrees with Cluvius and the 
 preponderance of tradition. 
 
 Then Pliny is cited as relating that, after Nero would have 
 been killed, Piso, according to the plan of the conspirators, 
 was to be led to the Praetorian camp attended by Antonia, the 
 daughter of Claudius Caesar, to gain the favor of the people. 
 There was evidently no other report to confirm this. Tacitus 
 therefore, judging it on its own merits, finds it improbable, 
 because Antonia would hardly have lent her name and risked 
 her life in a project that held out no hope to her, and 
 because Piso, known for his affection for his wife, would not 
 have entered into matrimony with another woman.* 
 
 Whether Tacitus in the history of Nero used Cluvius more 
 extensively than other sources,"^ cannot be ascertained. It is 
 true, he does not criticise him, as he criticises Fabius and Pliny ; 
 but it must be noted that he mentions him only twice,^ and that 
 in both instances Cluvius happens to have the consensus of 
 others. There was no occasion for criticism. 
 
 How the unnamed authors were used is indicated Ann. 14, 59. 
 Tacitus is here relating the murder of Rubellius Plautus in Asia, 
 whose assassins found him in the middle of the day engaged in 
 
 'Ann. 14. 2. 
 
 '15. 61. 
 
 'Clason, Thc. u. Suit. p. 1.'. 
 
 *Ann. 15, 53. 
 
 "Clason, Tac. u. Suet. p. 15. 
 
 •13. 20; 14. 2. 
 
 Page eleven 
 
bodily exercises. After mentioning a number of possible reasons 
 for this lack of resistance, he says : "Certain it is that the 
 assassins found him," etc. In this case the reports varied so 
 much, that whatever consen^ns remained was negligible. Tacitus 
 therefore mentions the various opinions on the point of differ- 
 ence without passing any judgm.ent, and then records the un- 
 disputed fact of the murder. 
 
 In a similar way he states that according to some authors 
 Nero ordered Seneca to he poisoned in 64 A. D, He does not 
 argue from the silence of other authors — perhaps the majority — 
 to the truth of the report of a few. but lets the reader judge 
 himself, if he will.^ 
 
 He also refrains from judging in cases in which the weight of 
 the testimony for and of that against the truth of a statement 
 are c^ual, or nearly so. After having described the assassination 
 of Agrippina, he says : "In these particulars authors are agreed, 
 but as to whether Nero viewed the breathless body of his mother 
 and praised its beauty, there are those who have affirmed it, and 
 those who deny it."^ 
 
 Another instance concerns the death of Poppaea. Some at- 
 tribute her death to a kick that Nero gave her when she was 
 pregnant ; others say that he poisoned her. This Tacitus can 
 not believe, as Nero desired to have children and was devoted 
 to his wife, and he censures the latter authors for having writ- 
 ten from spite rather than conviction.-'^ 
 
 Tacitus then, though generally following the consensus of the 
 historians, is critical in their use, considering both the character 
 of the authors and the circumstances of their life, and the agree- 
 ment of their reports with established facts. 
 
 Influence of a Gloomy and Fatalistic View 
 
 The influence which his gloomy and fatalistic view of his time 
 had upon Tacitus' presentation of the history of Nero must not 
 he overrated. It is there, to be sure. Tacitus had lived the 
 years of his childhood under Nero and had been mature enough 
 in 68-70 to be deeply impressed with the downfall of the tyrant 
 and the violence and bloodshed which marked the rise and fall 
 of the three emperors. The following years, the happy reign of 
 Vespasian and Titus (70-81), during which he grew into man- 
 hood and entered the senate, had not wiped out this impression, 
 when the bloodthirsty Domitian began to reign ( — 96 A. D.), 
 
 Ann. l.'i. fil. 
 
 I'atic twelve 
 
who, like Nero, sought to destroy the senate.^ Tacitus lived to 
 see the rule of better men, Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. And 
 this was the time lin which he wrote his history of the Roman 
 emperors, the Annals being published in 116 or 117 A. D.^ But 
 he had not freed his mind entirely from the obsession of that 
 pessimistic view of the Roman world. As he looks back, he 
 still sees "the wrath of heaven against the Roman state."^ This 
 view could not fail to influence his presentation of events in his 
 historical works and, of course, was very stronsL^ in his history 
 of Nero, the horrors of whose reign he had seen repeated 
 under Domitian.- 
 
 The influence of this view is noticed chiefly in his choice of 
 material. Although his principal object in writing the Annals 
 was **ne virtutes sileantur,"^ the dark colors prevail in the pic- 
 ture he draws both of Nero and of that time, and thus he over- 
 draws, as a comparison with Suetonius will show. "Not the 
 Histories only," says Merivale, "but all the other works of 
 Tacitus, are drawn up almost in the form of indictments against 
 his own age,"* 
 
 Fairness 
 
 On the other hand, Tacitus strives to be fair. He does not 
 want to put the worst construction on every thing, the proneness 
 of people to do which he deplores." 
 
 He seems bitter and unfair in his contemptuous words on the 
 composition of Nero's poems and on his dabbling with philoso- 
 phy.^ Poets, he says, who were invited to Nero's table patched 
 their lines to the emperor's crude effusions. His only proof for 
 the truth of this assertion is the lack of inspiration and uni- 
 formity that the poem-a show. To the squabbles of philosophers 
 of opposite views Nero listened, says Tacitus, only for amuse- 
 ment. But there was hardly any need of proof in these in- 
 stances. It was well known that at least Nero's letters to the 
 senate were written by Seneca, and it is apparent that there 
 could be no philosophy for a character like Nero's ; he could 
 have no real interest in a contest of philosophers of different 
 schools. 
 
 The speech to Nero, in which Seneca asks leave to retire from 
 public life and to return his wealth to Nero, and Nero's reply, 
 
 'On DoiT)itian's reigm cp. Tac. Agr. 3, 10 ft (Tot annls, quibus invenes ad 
 senectuioni, .seues prope .-rt ip.ses exactae terminos per sllentium 
 venimus.) 
 
 -Nipperdev. C. Tao.. Einl. p. 11. 
 
 »Arm. 16, 16. 
 
 ^Ct'. Ayr. 45: Nero tamon .<?i'btr:.ixit im iilo.: .•un)^ ius.siuiiu- .•-«•«. !t;rM, noii ^piH-- 
 ta^vit: praiic.pua yub Dornitiano iniseriaium v)ais erat videre ef aspici. etc. 
 
 "Ann. 3, 65. 
 
 "Hist, of the lloni.. 7, 210. 
 
 TAnn. 15, 6. 4. 
 
 "14, 16. 
 
 Page thirteen 
 
may seem invented for the defense of the admired philosopher. 
 But is it not possible that the speech was recorded by Seneca 
 himself and left among his writings together with a reproduction 
 of Nero's reply ?^ In this case it would have been Seneca who 
 had been partial to himself. 
 
 However that may be, Tacitus is a lover of truth; he seeks to 
 ascertain the truth and to present it without partiality ; and, on 
 the whole, he certainly succeeds in doing so. 
 
 In the same paragraph in which he states that Nero acquired 
 the empire by crime, he says that tiie proconsul I. Silanus was 
 killed without Nero's knowledge, at the order of Agrippina, and 
 that Narcissus, the freedman of Claudius, was driven to death 
 by Agrippina against Nero's will.^ However much Tacitus ab- 
 hors the tyrant, however severe his judgments upon Nero may 
 be, when they seem justified, he frequently rejects testimony 
 that is adverse to the emperor. He will not accept the testimony 
 of Fabius that the attempts at incest between Nero and his 
 mother proceeded from the prince f and he cannot believe that 
 Nero poisoned Poppaea, as some have stated. "* Other examples 
 could be added. 
 
 The passage on the persecution of the Christians under Nero^ 
 has been the occasion of much criticism. Tacitus is said to have 
 erred both with regard to the extent and duration of the perse- 
 cution, and the accusation brought against the Christians. 
 
 He says that a vast multitude was killed. This phrase alone, 
 Ramsay^ points out, might well be interpreted, in a writer like 
 Tacitus, as indicating that the number arrested and tried was 
 great in view of the charge, viz. incendiarism, in which, as a 
 rule, only a small number of persons are likely to unite. But 
 the whole description is not that of a sudden isolated outbreak 
 of hostility toward the Christians. There was not only time 
 enough to allow for a change in the mode of prosecution,*^ but 
 the massacre was continued long enough to bring satiety to a 
 populace pretty well accustomed to public butcheries.* Sueto- 
 nius* confirms that the persecution lasted for a longer period by 
 enumerating it among a number of permanent police regulations 
 for maintaining order and good conduct. This is quite possible, 
 although Nero, having begun the persecution in 64, left Rome at 
 
 'Seneca — ita inripit. — .\(\ fiuao .N'ero .sir ffijne respondlt. Ann. It. b'.\, 55. 
 
 '13. 1. M6. «. 
 
 n\. 2. ^15, 14 
 
 •The Church in the Rom. lOmp., p. 2iO. 
 
 ^Iffltur priniujn ccireptl. (|ul fatebantur. deindt- indiciu eoiuni niulitudo in- 
 
 fjcns hand proindc in crlmine inc»*ndl qi'.am odio humani Keneri.s convlcti 
 
 .sunt, 
 'l^nde (4uamquam adver.su.s .sontea t^t novi.s.simi <'xonipla nieritos mi.seratio 
 
 orlebatur, (.ini'in.'nii non iil ilit.-iti- piililii:i ^or\ in sM«<it irtm unius absu- 
 
 merentur. 
 •.N'ero. 16. 
 
 I'd}.' fourteen 
 
the end of 66, and only returned in 68 to hear of the revolt of 
 Vinidex: for we know that, going to Greece, he left his hang- 
 man Helios at Rome with full power to kill.^ Origen may seem 
 to contradict Tacitus with regard to the number of Christians 
 killed. In a treatise written in 248 he says: "Only a few, 
 whose numbers can easily be counted, have suffered death from 
 time to time for the sake of the faith, and to encourage the 
 rest."^ But here is no real disagreement. As Friedlaender 
 points on;:, L .=. \ iciin^ ;f ihc Xcroiiiavi por.-ecuLioii, who cannot 
 properly be called martyrs, were not reckoned.^ The "multitudo 
 ingens" then should seem to offer no difficulty. Besides, why 
 should wc assume that tlie persecutions did not spread beyond 
 the bounds of Rome? True, Tacitus speaks of the City; but he 
 refers to the spreading of Christianity from Jndaea to the 
 Capitol. Does he not perhaps after all see the vast multitude 
 scattered over a larger part of the empire? A votive inscription 
 found in the ruins of the village of Marquesia in Lusitania te '^- 
 tifies both to the extent and the severity of the persecution.* It 
 isi not likely that Nero ordered the persecution to be extended 
 to the provinces, except where there was a special occasion for 
 it; but his action at Rome must have served as a precedent in 
 other parts of the empire. 
 
 Eusebius of Caesarea confirms the long duration of the Nero- 
 nian persecution by naming Peter and Paul, the two great apos- 
 tles of Christ, among the victims.^ The death of these two 
 apostles occurred, according to Clemens Romanus, in February 
 of the last year of Nero's reign, while he was abroad. The 
 persecution begun in 64 then did not cease before the end of 
 his reign. 
 
 It is possible that Nero, although he was absent at the time, 
 was directly responsible for the death of the two apostles, for, 
 departing for the East, the emperor had committed to Helios 
 all whom he had doomed to die.^ 
 
 But what of the change of "odium humani generis" and the 
 "ftagitia" on accoimt of which the Christians were hated? Gib- 
 bon'^ says that "it was natural for the philosopher to indulge 
 himself in the description of the origin, the progress, and the 
 character of the new sect, not so much according to the knowl- 
 edge or prejudices of the age of Nero, as according to those of 
 
 'Dio c. e:'. ii:. 
 
 «Ori&. c. Cels. III. 8. 
 
 •Rom. I.ifo and Mrnners Jll. U'.".. 
 
 *NERONI ri.. OAiS. ATJn. PONT. '.'AX. < V.. >'liOVlN(\ • ATROXIB. lOT. 
 
 ITIS. QI']. rsCV.^^r. GENKRI. HUM. SUPERSTITION. INCUECAB. 
 
 PURGAT.\^I. Tnscr. Orut. p. 2:^8. 0. Cy>. Pniil'.s Fp. to the Rom. l.S. 21. 
 •Eusebius, Hist, eccl., 2, 2r>. 
 •DIo C. 63, 12. 
 'Rom. Empire 1, fi04. 
 
 Page fifteen 
 
the time of Hadrian," and explains the view recorded by Tacitus 
 as due to the fact that he appropriated to the Christians of Rome 
 the guilt and the sufferings which he might have contributed 
 with far greater truth to the followers of Judas the Gaulonite. 
 But this conjecture is, as ivi. Guizot says, entirely devoid, not 
 merely of verisimilitude, but even of possibility, because the fol- 
 lowers of Judas never went to i<.ome and can hardly have been 
 known as a sect, and because Tacitus refers too distinctly to the 
 etymology of the name of Christians to allow us to suspect any 
 mistake on his part.^ 
 
 As to the "hatred of mankind," the MS. of Florence has 
 "coniuncti" instead of '*convicti." Ramsay,^ who adopts this 
 reading, considers it a poetical usage in« the sense : They were 
 put side by side with the first class of culprits.^ But not only 
 must we suspect that "coniuncti" is the correction of a Ciiristian 
 copyist, but the verb of the first clause, "correpti," seems to re- 
 quire the corresponding "convicti sunt," since the intent evi- 
 dently is not to record the opinion of the public, nor even of the 
 courts, but the prosecution of the Christians. Tacitus no doubt 
 meant to say that the Christians were convicted of the crime of 
 "odium." 
 
 By the "flagitia" probably poisoning and magic were meant. 
 Tacitus does not say that the Christians were believed to com- 
 mit such crimes,^ but that they were hated on account of them. 
 The words contain a judgment of the writer upon the Christians 
 that we can not get away from. 
 
 It is not at all incredible, however, that such cringes were 
 attributed to the private meetings of tlie Christians from the 
 bcginninj^,' a.^ we kp.f>\v ihcy were later on. Friedlacnder has 
 remarked that in the old Roman world the impression caused by 
 the great Bacchanalia process (185 B. C.) lasted for centuries. 
 "At that time," he says, "a secret worship of Bacchus that had 
 made its way into Rome through Etruria was used as a cloak 
 for the most outrageous excesses and the most abominable 
 crimes ; the result of the investigation instituted by the senate 
 was the punishment (chiefly by death) of thousands who had 
 taken part in these orgies. The charges of Oedipean connec- 
 tions and Thyestean banquets (i. e. unnatural excesses and ritual 
 murder) were revived against the Christians."" The error of 
 Tacitus then is reduced to this that he records as facts the 
 "flagitia," of which the Christians were falsely accused. It 
 
 'Gibbon, Rom. Empire 1, 605. note. 
 
 *Tho Chunli in tlie Rom. Rmp. p. 2:^.3, note. 
 
 »("p. Ann. 1.?. 7: 6. 2C,: 4. 57, 33. 
 
 *Thl8 Is RHin.'^ay'.s Interpretation, p. 237. 
 
 *C'p. 1. Peter 2, 12: "They .speak against you as evildoers." 
 
 •L. T->ledl.'UMulfr, Hotri. I.lfe ;ind Mimn.rs TIT. 189. 
 
 roiic sixteen 
 
would not be fair to make any inference from this instance with 
 regard to the character of his research generally. The error 
 can be explained, partly by the obscurity of the Christians in 
 those days, whom Tacitus considered a Jewish sect/ partly by 
 the pride of the old Roman, who hardly could deem such a for- 
 eign matter, which seemed of so little consequence to the state, 
 worthy of any investigation beyond that of the courts. Judg- 
 ments like that of Pliny^ were no doubt rare exceptions, and 
 even Pliny would perhaps not have arrived at his more correct 
 view of Christianity, if it had not been his official duty to in- 
 quire into the matter. 
 
 Chronology 
 
 Employing the annalistic method, Tacitus gives the chrono- 
 logical sequence of events with much accuracy. When relating 
 the history of wars or of foreign affairs, he sometimes brings 
 together events of more than one year; but in these instances he 
 does not fail to state it,^ or the chronology is apparent without 
 any explanation.** 
 
 Superstition 
 
 I^ike other writers of his time, Tacitus was not free from 
 superstition. In the career of Curtius Rufus, the son of a 
 gladiator who finally obtained the consular power, the honors of 
 triumph and the government of Africa, he saw the fulfillment 
 of a prediction by a vision.^ He records as a fact that the 
 Ubians in 58 A. D. were afflicted by mysterious fire, issuing from 
 the earth, which could be put out only by volleys of stones and 
 blows from clubs, and by the throwing on of clothes, which 
 proved the more effectual, the more soiled and worn they were.^ 
 The appearance of a comet in 60 A. D. is recorded as presaging 
 a change of rulers.''^ Nero's bathing in the sacred water of the 
 fountainhead of the Marcian aqueduct brought upon him a 
 dangerous sickness showing the wrath of the gods.^ The super- 
 stition of Tacitus does not, however, materially affect the value 
 of his work, as he is moderate in recording such things. In fact, 
 it must be borne in mind that, though the historian himself 
 should be free from superstition, any history of a superstitious 
 people would be imperfect without a record of such things be- 
 
 'Cp. G. Boissiov. Tacit e. p. MS-4i». 
 
 *Ep. ad Trai. 96. 
 
 •Ann. 13, 9. 
 
 *14, 23. cp. with 13, 11.. tiio respective years beins' 58 and «0. 
 
 m, 21. 
 
 "13. 57. 
 
 n4, 22. 
 
 «14. 22. 
 
 Page seventeen 
 
cause of their influence upon the affairs of the state and of 
 individuals.^ 
 
 Suggestion of Motives 
 
 The fondness of Tacitus for suggesting motives is remarkable 
 and has been criticised. It should be noted, however, that he is 
 very careful in determining the motives in any case. As a rule, 
 he mentions a number of possible or probable motives, leaving it 
 to the judgment of the reader to decide which was the real 
 motive;^ and in this respect he differs from Suetonius and Dio 
 Cassius. However difficult the task may be, it can not be con- 
 sidered a fault, if the historian tries to bring out the psycho- 
 logical element of history. 
 
 Preponderance of the PersoneJ Element 
 
 In this connection we may consider that the personality of 
 Nero occupies so large a place in the story of his reign, that, in 
 spite of the annalistic form of the work, it is, in substance, 
 almost biographical. The historical works of the imperial period 
 are all, more or less, characterized by a concentration upon the 
 mere personal element.^ In the history of Nero this is not a 
 serious fault, if a fault at all. Tacitus always has in view the 
 influence of Nero's acts upon the whole Roman state. Clason 
 has well said: "Wenn er auch keine Biographic des Kaisers 
 schrieb, so blieb doch die Person desselben durchaus das bewe- 
 gende Moment in der Zeit, daher denn sein Charakter vor Allem 
 zur noetigen Klarheit und Durchsichtigkeit gebracht werden 
 musste. Wie weit dies Tacitus gelungen ist, und ob bei Nero 
 es ueberhaupt moeglich war, ist eine andere Frage. Eine aehn- 
 liche Mischung des uebermuetigen, eitlen, leichtfertigen, furcht- 
 samen und unbesonnenen Kindes mit dem vor keinem Ver- 
 brechen zurueckschreckenden, gewissenlosesten und sittlich ver- 
 wahrlosesten, dabei mit Talenten begabten Manne, ist kaum 
 jemals vorhanden gewesen, eine Mischung, bei der das Ver- 
 staendnis aufhoert und des Historikers groesste Kunst darin 
 hesteht, das Ungeheuerliche in seiner Vereinigung zu einer Per- 
 son recht anschaulich darzustellen."'* 
 
 'Cp. Ann. 13. 57: the .super.stitlon of the Hemiundurians and the Chattians 
 aji a cnn.se of tlir battle; 13. 58: the effect of the withering- of the tree 
 Ruminalis upon the mind of the people; 13. 13: the storm.s and pestilences 
 by which the Kod.s branded the year that wtts stained with so much blood 
 prt-pjired the mind of tlie people for the overthrow of Nero; 15. 17: vulgan- 
 tur prodigia, Imminentium maJorum nuntia. 
 
 '(^p. Ann. 13, 18; 14. 59; 15. 38. 
 
 'T«'uffcl and Schwabe. Hlstor>' of Ftom. Lit. 1. 51. 
 
 *ria.«*on. Tnr. p. Suet., p Ifi. 
 
 /'i/(/t fiyhUeti 
 
Characterization of Nero 
 
 Among the stronger traits of Nero's character, Tacitus em- 
 phasizes his cruelty. Did he consider this trait the dominating 
 one ? Perhaps not ; but it is Nero's influence upon the state that 
 interests Taoitus most; and to the state the emperor's cruelty 
 proved more destructive than his vanity and sensuaUty. Tacitus 
 is therefore sometimes misled to disregard the chief motive of 
 an action or to treat it as secondary. Relating the death of C. 
 Petronius, Tacitus says : "Tigellinus had recourse to the cruelty 
 of the prince, a passion to which all his other passions gave 
 place, laying to the charge of Petronius an intimacy with Scae- 
 vinus."^ In this case the cruelty was evidently aroused by fear; 
 for Scaevinus had been chosen to fell Nero in the conspiracy of 
 Piso. In fact most of the innumerable acts of cruelty that Nero 
 committed were prompted either by fear or by a desire to pos- 
 sess the wealth of his victims for the purpose of satisfying his 
 vanity and sensuality. It would be difficult to find an instance 
 in which the emperor perpetrated a cruelty merely because he 
 took pleasure in inflicting suffering upon others. Most of his 
 cruel acts were due to other traits of his character.- These u 
 
 Tacitus does not overlook. Pie says e. g. of the young prince 
 that his vices, as yet undeveloped, agreed remarkably with the 
 avarice and prodigality of Narcissus.^ He mentions that Nero 
 destroyed Pallas, because the protracted life of the freedman 
 kept him out of the riches this man had accumulated,^ and that 
 to the rapacity of the prince multitudes owed their destruction.^ 
 He records how those who were doomed by the emperor to die ^ 
 
 remembered him in their wills, in order that he might spare their 
 relatives.^ He furthermore describes how Nero was over- 
 powered with terror and dismay, when he heard that his plan to 
 destroy his mother had failed and could not be unknown to her -^ 
 and once he makes the statement that Nero was always timor- 
 ous.^ He also furnishes many proofs of the extreme vanity of 
 Nero, who "longed to achieve things that exceeded credibility,"^ 
 and opposed, banished, or killed men, because they possessed 
 greater talent than he, or failed to recognize his pretended su- 
 periority.^^ All this is not lacking in Tacitus ;^^ but in his plan 
 
 ' Avn. l(>, 18. Cp. 15, 58: magis magisve pjivido Ncioiit;. 
 Cp. Dio C. 61, 5. We can apply to Nero Suetonius' judermtnt on Domitian: 
 
 super ing«nii raturnm inopia rapax, motu .saevus, Suet. Dom. 3. 
 "Ann. 13. 1. 
 ^4, 65. 
 
 ne, 14. 
 
 «16. 11. 17. 
 
 '14, 7. 
 
 -16, 5. 
 
 -15, 42. 
 
 '"15, 49 (J^uc;in;; )<:, 29 (MontuiiU.-; ; IG, 'i\ (Thriistvi Vuo'.wa,. 
 "Cp. also 14. 13: suberbus ac publici servitii victor. 
 
 Page nirictcm 
 
of presentation the destructive cruelty of Nero demands em- 
 phasis, and therefore the other traits of the emperor's character 
 are not brought out as strongly as they should be and in their 
 proper relation to his cruelty and to each other. 
 
 SUETONIUS 
 
 Character 
 
 Suetonius is described by the younger Pliny, who was his 
 intimate friend, as a studious man, who was not easily moved to 
 publish the fruit of his studies.^ That Pliny assisted him in 
 providing for the publication of his works, seems to indicate 
 that Suetonius was a man of retired habits, unfamiliar with 
 practical affairs of life.^ Pliny entertained the highest regard 
 for him and valued his impartial judgment. In his letter to 
 Trajan, in which he asks the emperor to grant to his friend the 
 "ius trium liberorum," he calls him : "probissimum honestissi- 
 mum eruditissimum virum."^ But learned, truth-loving, and 
 diligent though he was, Suetonius was hardly familiar enough 
 with the affairs of the world and the life of the empire to write 
 a work that would give us a true picture of Nero and his time. 
 
 Scope and Plan of His Life of Nero 
 
 A history of the empire under Nero's reign he did nut, how- 
 ever, aim at giving us. While Tacitus presents Nero as the head 
 of the state and describes him as seen in his relation to the 
 events of that time, Suetonius describes the personality of 
 Nero taken for itself, paying no regard to the general course 
 of the history of the empire. His life of Nero is not even 
 a real history of the emperor's life, but only a mass of 
 biographical material arranged in a number of groups. 
 
 Ausonius divides his Life into four sections: name, exploits, 
 manner of life, death.^ The arrangement of the material might 
 be indicated in the following way. After recording Nero's pedi- 
 gree, his birth, and early youth up to the time of his accession, 
 lie illustrates in succession various traits of the emperor's char- 
 acter in the following order. Chapter 10: Clemency and justice 
 in the early part of his reign; 11-13: fondness for games and 
 exhibitions; 14-17: attention to the affairs of the state; 18: 
 ambition for the extension of the empire; 19: journies abroad; 
 
 'iMln. ep. 1. 24: 6. 10. 
 
 -PoteT-. Dlo gi'.sch. Lit.. 2. «!7: t^lii ae.i.i.f:<l !u-lu-f Stulx'nt'-elflirtt r. 
 
 •Ad Tral.. 94, 1. 
 
 'Df \II (^aow. 1, 4-5: Nomlnn nr-» m sti.:- vitnin>|u<.' il)lluniqin^ peretfit. 
 
 Fane iwciUy 
 
20-25 : disgraceful passions ; 26-39 : criminal qualities (petu- 
 lantia, libido, luxuria, avaritia, crudelitas) ; 40-45: his downfall; 
 51: his physical person; 52: literary activity; 53-55: vanity; 
 56: irreligiiousness ; 57: death. 
 
 Value of the Work 
 
 The plan did not permit of much chronology nor of much 
 consideration of cause and effect. Consequently the picture 
 which Suetonius draws, if it may be called a picture, lacks a 
 background. Besides, the different parts are out of proportion 
 with each other. There are e. g. nine chapters on Nero's theatre- 
 craze,^ while there are only six on his cruelties,^ although the 
 latter are historically more important. Clason's description of 
 the biography is true: "Fuer Sueton ist alles ein plattes Bild, 
 auf dem die Momente neben einander, teils groesser, teils kleiner 
 stehen, in dem keine Perspektive, keine Ursache fuer Klein und 
 Gross, Hell and Dunkel existiert. Ein solches Bild hat keinen 
 Charakter und ist qualitativ wertlos."^^ Take e. g. the persecu- 
 tion of the Christians. While Tacitus tells us that it was re- 
 sorted to by Nero after the conflagration to avert from himself 
 the hatred of the suffering people,"^ Suetonius simply mentions it 
 as a police regulation among the laudable acts of Nero.^ 
 
 The value of the work lies chiefly in its many biographical 
 and other details, by which the narrative of Tacitus is illustrated 
 or supplemented, and sometimes corrected. It supplies infor- 
 mation, e. g., on public opinion concerning the punishment of 
 the Christians in 64 A. D., the occasion of Nero's tour to 
 Greece and his participation in the contests, the Golden House 
 before and after the great fire, the attempted digging of the 
 Campanian canal, the influence a comet had on the prosecution 
 of the Pisonian conspirators, and the details of Nero's plan of 
 revenge near ll.e end and his subsequent plans of escape.*^ 
 
 Relation to Tacitus 
 
 Suetonius never names Tacitus. As the intimate friend of the 
 younger Pliny he must, however, have known Tacitus and his 
 works. Tacitus was no doubt among their common friends to 
 whom Pliny had announced the publication of Suetonius' works. ''^ 
 
 'Suet. Nero 11 -"13; 20-2.'). 
 
 ^33- 38. 
 
 »Clason, Tac. u. Suet. p. 20. 
 
 *Ann. 15, 44. 
 
 'Nero 16. 
 
 •Nero 16 (mulLa iiniiuadveisa severe et eoercilu — alllioti supplicils Chrls- 
 
 tiani); 22-24; 31; 31-32; :;H; 43; 47. 
 ^Plin. ep. 5. 10. 
 
 Page twenty-one 
 
The question then arises : Did Suetonius use the Annals of 
 Tacitus in writing his Life of Nero, and to what extent? 
 
 The two authors differ not only by each recording facts which 
 the other does not mention.^ which might be due to a difference 
 of plan, but also on events which both record. 
 
 The former is the case with regard to the construction of the 
 great wooden theatre on the Campus Martins. Suetonius,^ to 
 show Nero's fondness for games and exhibitions, records both 
 the construction of the theatre and the spectacles given at its 
 dedication. Tacitus^ turns from the subject with disgust, re- 
 marking that it is unworthy of being inserted in the annals of 
 the Roman people. 
 
 For the latte?r a considerable number of examples coi^ld be ad- 
 duced. According to Suetonius* Nero was born on the 15th day 
 of December in the year 37 A. D. and was adopted b}/ Claudius 
 in the boy's 11th year, in the year 48 or 49.-''* According to 
 Tacitus^ the adoption did not take place before the beginning of 
 the year 50, when Nero was in his 13th year. Tacitus is evi- 
 dently right, as he names the consuls of the year, and Claudius 
 did not marry Agrippina before the year 49."^ While Tacitus 
 attributes the attempt at incest to Agrippina/"^ Suetonius says 
 that it was Nero's desire to enter into an incestuousi relation to 
 his mother, and claims that this had not been considered a mat- 
 ter of doubt by any one.^ There is also a noteworthy difference 
 concerning the poetical productions of the emperor. Tacitus,^^ 
 as we have seen, claims that Nero's poems were largely the 
 productions of others, and bases this judgment on the alleged 
 lack of uniformity. Suetonius^^ says the opposite, that Nero 
 composed poems with pleasure and ease. He claims to have 
 seen Nero's manuscripts and to have observed that the poems 
 bore the marks of being one man's work. The divergence could 
 not be greater. Besides, Suetonius remarks that some believed 
 that Nero had published the works of others under his own 
 name.^^ Was Tacitus among the authors he refers to? If not, 
 his sources must have been. Again, while Tacitus calls it a 
 rumor that Nero during the conflagration of Rome sang the 
 
 'Cp. the abolition of the decrees of Claudius. Suet. Nero 34. which Tacitus 
 does not record. 
 
 'Nero 12. 
 
 'Ann. 13. 31. 
 
 •Nero 6-7. 
 
 'Nero 7 compared T\ith 6: "post Villi, niensena quam Tiberius, excessit." 
 and Tiberius 73: "anno tertio et vicesimo ImpeTll. XVll. KAL. Ap. 
 
 •Ann. 12. 25. 
 
 'Suet. Clnud. 26; Joseph. Ant. 20, 8. 1; Tac. Ann. 12. 5: C. Pompeio Q. 
 Verannlo ron.sulibus Cp. Dio C. 60, 31. • 
 
 'Ann. 14. 2. 
 
 •Nero 28. 
 '•14, 16. 
 "Nero 52. 
 "ut quidian putanl 
 
 /V/'' tu'cnty-two 
 
Destruction of Troy, Suetonius states it as a fact; and while 
 according to Tacitus Nero was said to have done this on the 
 stage of the imperial theatre,^ Suetonius names the Tower of 
 Maecenas as the place.^ 
 
 These examlpes show that Suetonius wrote his biography quite 
 independently of the Annals of Tacitus,^ and that he must have 
 had some sources that Tacitus did not possess ; for if he had 
 no other sources, Tacitus would have bad to record these 
 divergencies in accordance with his rule."* Above wc have 
 mentioned Suetonius' reference to manuscripts of Nero that he 
 had studied.^ This reference indicates the sources that were at 
 his disposal, but not at the disposal of Tacitus ; they were in the 
 imperial archives, which his position as private secretary to 
 Hadrian gave him access to. Perhaps he was also more inclined 
 to listen to verbal tradition,^ as he did not hesitate to record the 
 vilest lampoons.*^ At any rate, he used original sources, though, 
 on the whole, they must have been the same that Tacitus used. 
 Besides, the time of the composition of the two works makes it 
 almost certain that Suetonius did not use Tacitus. The Annals 
 appeared only a short time before the publication of Suetonius' 
 Lives, and Suetonius' mode of composition presupposes a longer 
 time.® 
 
 Use of Sources 
 
 In the use of his sources, Suetonius is not guided by the 
 principle that we have seen Tacitus follow. While Tacitus e. g. 
 states that Nero killed Poppaea by a kick, but also mentions the 
 report that she was poisoned,^ Suetonius gives us the former 
 version only.^^ While Tacitus records that it is uncertain 
 whether Burrus was poisoned bv Nero or died of a throat dis- 
 ease,^^ Suetonius makes the positive statement that Burrus died 
 of poison administered by the order of Nero.^^ Concerning the 
 cause of the great fire, Tacitus again mentions two reports, the 
 one affirming that it was accidental, the other that Nero had set 
 the City afire ;^^ Suetonius simply says that Nero caused the 
 fire.^* According to Tacitus, there was a false report among the 
 
 'Ann. 15. 89. 
 
 'Nero 38. 
 
 'Clason, Suet. u. Tac, p. 27. 
 
 ♦Ann. 13, 20. 
 
 ''Nero 52. Cp. Aug-. 87. 
 
 "Nero 29: ex nonnulli.s compeji. Cp. Clau!. 15: a maJoribus natu audiobarn. 
 
 ^Nero 39. 
 
 •Peter, Die geschichtl. Lit. 2. 69. 
 
 •Ann. 16, 6. 
 ^•Nero 35. 
 «'Ann. 11. 51. 
 '"Nero 35. 
 •'".Ann. 1.5, :!S. 
 »*Noro 3'J. 
 
 Paqr iiK'cufx-iJwcc 
 
I 
 
 Syrian troops during the Armenian war, spread by the Parthians, 
 that Roman legions under Paetus had been made to pass under 
 the yoke.^ Suetonius states this humiliation as an established 
 fact.2 
 
 These examples do not prove that Suetonius generally fol- 
 lowed one author as his main source and only in rare cases con- 
 sulted several ;^ but they show that, as a rule, he does not record 
 any divergence of his sources. This is a fault which appears the 
 more serious, as we notice what determined his choice in such 
 cases. As suggested by the plan of his work, it was his interest 
 to illustrate certain traits of character in the emperor. Take 
 e. g. the great fire.* If Suetonius wanted to record it at all, he 
 had to group it, according to his plan, with some other events 
 illustrating the same trait of Nero's character. That Nero was 
 suspected and by many believed to have set fire to the City, was 
 a fact that all were agreed on. But Suetonius makes the positive 
 statement : "incendit urbem." The proofs, however, which he 
 adduces are not at all convincing. That Nero once uttered the 
 wish to outlive, like Priam, the destruction of his mother-city — 
 and Suetonius does not even put it as directly as that — is no 
 proof that he set fire to Rome, and that at this time, when he 
 still believed his reign secure; that some of Nero's servants were 
 discovered with tow and torch on the property of others, might 
 be explained by the fact that attempts were made to save an this 
 way those parts of the City which adjoined the burning sections; 
 this is also the simplest explanation for the destruction of the 
 granaries near the Golden House by the use of machines of war 
 and by fire ; Tacitus records that in this way the fire was actually 
 stopped on the sixth day f and was not the vanity of Nero great 
 enough to permit him to attempt a theatrical stunt in the midst 
 of a calamity which he himself had good reason to deplore? 
 But Nero setting fire to his imperial city — what a splendid illus- 
 tration of his insane cruelty, which did not let him spare even 
 "his people and the walls of the city of his fathers."® From 
 Tacitus we learn that there was no evidence of Nero's guilt.'' -— 
 
 Using his sources in this way, Suetonius could not, of course, 
 be consistent in his choice between divergent records. Take the 
 death of Nero. In his biography of the Emperor he tells us that 
 Epaphroditus a libellis aided his master in killing himself; in the 
 life of Domitian, who condemned Epaphroditus to death, he will 
 
 Ann. 15. IT). 
 »Nero 39. 
 
 'Nero 34: viewinn of the mother'.^ bo<J>-. 
 •Nero 38. 
 •Ann. 16. 40. 
 •Nero 38. 
 '.\nn. 15. :i8. 
 
 Potjc twenty-four 
 
not say more than that this officer was believed to have lent a 
 hand when Nero put an end to his life.^ 
 
 Neither can the research of Suetonius have been very exhaus- 
 tive. He was not always aware of the existence of divergent 
 reports which others have recorded. The question of Nero's 
 incest is such a case. We know from Tacitus^ that there was a 
 difference of opinion between the older historians as to whether 
 the incestuous approaches proceeded from Nero or from Agrip- 
 pina. Nevertheless Suetonius tells us : "That Nero sought 
 sexual intercourse with his mother * * * no one has doubted.^ 
 
 On the other hand, there is a peculiar definiteness in Suetonius. 
 Take his statements of time and place. Nero was born at An- 
 tium "post VIII mensem quam Tiberius excessit, XVIII KL. 
 JAN. tantum.. quod exoriente sole, paene ut radiis prius quam 
 terra contingeretur."^ The marriage of Poppaea Sabina took 
 place "duodecimo die post divortium Octaviae."^ He states the 
 exact duration of each of the four consulates of Nero.^ The 
 place of the fallen emperor's last refuge is described as "inter 
 Salariam et Nomentanam viam circa quartam miliarium."''' May 
 we then not assume that as far as his method permitted him, and 
 the extent of his research enabled him to be, Suetonius was as 
 accurate in his statements as he was definite? 
 
 Statement of Motives 
 
 Suetonius rarely suggests or attempts to determine motives, 
 but lets the items he records speak for themselves. He is an 
 antiquarian, not a philosopher. 
 
 Influence of Antiquarian Interest 
 
 His antiquarian interest is in evidence throughout the Life of 
 Nero. Brief as he otherwise is, he deems the story of the origin 
 of the name Aenobarbus worthy of record.^ As to the great fire, , 
 he deplores most the loss of the many monuments of antiquity,^ t 
 and uses more words in stating these than other losses that were 
 really greater. He explains why Nero on his tour in Greece did 
 not dare to seek initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries.^^ He 
 notices that when the report of the desertion of the armies 
 reached the emperor while at breakfast, he dashed against the 
 
 'Nero 49; Doiii. 11. 
 -Ann. 14. 2. 
 »Nero 28. 
 *Nero 6. 
 *Nero 35. 
 "Nero 14. 
 7 Nero 48. 
 
 "Nero 1. 1 , 
 
 »\'ei-<) 08: (jxiiiKi'iid visendvmi uLque iiuinural.ilc ex Hiiliquilat.- dm .1 vi-riii. 
 '"'i\ero o4. 
 
 PiUjr tiottity-fii't: 
 
floor two of his favorite cups, on which Homeric scenes were 
 embossed.^ And he records that Nero in his last hours desired 
 to hear an explanation of the punishment "more maiorum."^ 
 
 To the historian such thincrs are of minor value. Sometimes, 
 it is true, they cast light upon the character of Nero, and it must 
 be remembered that this was the aim of Suetonius.^ Frequently 
 however they take the place of more important information. 
 The extent of the influence of this antiquarian interest upon his 
 mode of presentation or the choice of material may be seen from 
 the iast example. Nero had in his hiding place received 
 a letter to the effect that the senate had declared him an enemy 
 of the fatherland and was seeking him, in order that he might be 
 punished "more maiorum." He then asked, says Suetonius, what 
 sort of punishment that was. Could Nero really be ignorant on 
 this point? He had studied and written history. He knew of 
 the institution of his ancestors "to withdraw from sight the 
 bodies of such as died prematurely."^ We are inclined to think 
 that Suetonius let Nero inquire as to the mode of punishment, 
 in order to gain an opportunity to answer the question himself. 
 
 Partiality for Gossip and Discreditable Facts 
 
 The antiquarian interest of Suetonius is coupled with a strong 
 partiality for discreditable things. Gossip and scandal have 
 found too much credence with him and too large a place in his 
 work.*^ We need but refer to his minute and comprehensive 
 records of Nero's sexual outrages.^ 
 
 Characterization of Nero 
 
 Suetonius' characterization of Nero differs somewhat from 
 that of the Annals. Describing the evil traits of the emperor's 
 character,'^ he speaks of his recklessness, licentiousness, avarice, 
 and cruelty. Which of these he considers the strongest is not 
 clear. There is nothing to indicate any comparison. His cruelty 
 is at least not emphasized, as in Tacitus. It is worth noting, 
 however, that Nero's vanity, not mentioned here, is treated by 
 (itself in three of the concluding chapters,* and that his theatrical 
 activities, in which his vanity found the most pronounced ex- 
 
 'Nero 47. 
 
 *Nero 49. 
 
 •Compare Nero 2: Fluris e familia oognosci refen-e arbltror, quo facilius 
 appareat Ita deponerasse p suorum vlrtutlbus Nero, ut tamcn vitia 
 culusque qua.«!i tnidita et Ingenita retulerit. 
 
 ♦Tec. Ann. 13, 17. A motion that AntL'-.tius .should be killed more maiorum 
 had hern reported to him by the con.su Is o( A. D. 62. Tac. Ann. 14, 49. 
 He had interpo.sed when the punishment "more mniorum" was recom- 
 mended in another case. 16. 11. 
 
 *Sandy.s. C'omp. to r..Jt. .Stud., p. ini j. 
 
 "Nero 28-29. 
 
 'Nero 26 -.19. 
 
 •r>S-B6. 
 
 Patu^ twenty six 
 
pression, are described in no less than nine chapters,^ while only 
 six are given to the relation of his cruelties.^ 
 
 The licentiousness of the emperor too, though not expressly 
 emphasized, stands out more glaring than in the Annals. This; is 
 partly explained, but only partly, by Clason's remark on Tacitus : 
 "Der Gegenstand war zu ekelhaft, um detailliert zu werden."^ 
 Tacitus could not, of course, have embodied chapters 28-29 of 
 Suetonius' Life in his Annals, while on the other hand, as we 
 have seen, Suetonius is fond of recording gossip and scandal. 
 But it would be unfair to assume that Suetonius was here led 
 only by his fondness for the scandalous, and had no serious pur- 
 pose. All the horrible details lead up to a statement of Nero's 
 moral principle : "neminem hominem pudicum aut ulla corporis 
 parte purum esse, verum plerosque dissimulare vitium et callide 
 optegere."* He considers the emperor's licentiousness a "naturae 
 vitium, non aetatis."^ To establish this claim is one of the ob- 
 'jects Suetonius has in view, when describing the ancestors of 
 Nero. While the emperor's grandfather, who by his marriage 
 with Antonia, the Elder, the niece of Augustus, established the 
 connection of his family with the Julian house, was a man of 
 vice, Nero's father, Cn. Domitius Aenobarbus, was "omni parte 
 vitae detestabilis," and among his crimes Suetonius makes special 
 mention of incest with his sister Lepida,^ These two among 
 Nero's ancestors, at least, seem to have been described with a 
 view to inherited traits in the emperor. 
 
 We may then conclude from the record of Suetonius that 
 vanity and sensuality were the dominating traits in the character 
 of Nero. They were combined with great recklessness, border- 
 ing at times on insanity, but quickly giving way to fright and 
 dismay, and they led to extravagance, avarice, and cruelty, with- 
 out which his vanity and sensuality could not be satisfied. 
 
 DIO CASSIUS 
 
 Valuation 
 
 That the Roman History of Dio Cassius, published in the be- 
 ginning of the third century, was not considered unimportant is 
 seen from the large number of fragments preserved in various? 
 writers, from the continuation of his work by an unknown to the 
 
 '11-13, 20-25. 
 »33-38. 
 
 Tlr^'-on. Tac*. vvj} Sviel., i>. 20. 
 
 *yoro "n. 
 
 •Nero 26. 
 
 *NfM-o 1 and .'>. 
 
 Page tii'cnt:y-st*z'cn 
 
time of Constantine, and from the abridgment of Xiphilinus and 
 the numerous excerpts from it in the Annals of Zonaras. 
 
 Modem historiography has relegated Dio to a much inferior 
 position. Sihler considers him incredibly reckless and finds his 
 ignorance sometimes painful, his reasoning weak, his allusions 
 often pointless, and some of the material of his work too poor 
 to notice in detail ;^ and Henderson thinks he is "little better 
 than a second-hand Suetonius writing in a pseudo-Thucydidean 
 style."2 
 
 Opportunity for Research 
 
 It liiusi \)ii conceded, however, that Dio had ample opportu- 
 nity i(^r icbearcii. Mc was senator under Commodus, governor 
 uf Smyrna after the death of Septimius Severus (211 A. D.), 
 afterward consul, as also proconsul in Africa and Panonia. 
 Alexander Severus (222-235) made him consul for the second 
 time. He not only spent the greater part of his time in public 
 employments that afforded opportunity for historical studies, 
 but his relation to Alexander Severus must have given him 
 access to valuable historical documents not accessible to others. 
 Likely his claim that he had read nearly everything that had 
 leen v/ritten by anybody on the events recorded in his histor>'^ 
 was justified. 
 
 Veracity 
 
 The fact that Alexander Severus, whose character was highly 
 praiseworthy, entertained such high regard for him that he made 
 him consul for the second time, with himself, although the prae- 
 torian guard, irritated against Dio on account of his severity, 
 had demanded his life, leads us to assume that he was a truth- 
 loving man, and endeavored both to find and to present the truth. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, however, that Dio had to spend 
 eighteen years uf his life urfder the reign of a cruel tyrant, 
 and that the life and reign of Septimius Severus presented 
 many points of striking similarity to that of Nro. Moreover, 
 Dio was m disfavor with that emperor and held no office 
 during his reign. It would therefore not have been inconsistent 
 with the veracity with which he is credited, if, when writing 
 the history of Nero, he had been inclined to overdraw, just as 
 Tacitus had been. 
 
 Sources 
 
 Dio seldom makes definite mention of sources, and never in 
 the history of Nero, as far as can be seen from the abridgment. 
 
 'Clc. of Arpln., p. 169. 437. 
 
 •The lAtp and Prinr. of the K. N. Prol.. p. 11. 
 
 »Dlo C. 1. 2. 
 
 Pauc twenty-eight 
 
 i 
 
Once he mentions Deoianus Catus, the governor of Britain, as 
 his authority for the cause of the British revolt ;^ but he does not 
 state where he found a record of the testimony. "As they say," 
 "it is said," "I have heard," "as has been said by many trust- 
 worthy men,"^ and similar phrases constitute his references ; but 
 this he has in common with all the ancient historians. These 
 references, however indefinite, when compared with such declar- 
 ations of Dio as the one in 53, 19, 6,^ sufficiently warrant the 
 assumption that he used all the sources that were at his disposal, 
 and, as seen, they can not have been so very few. 
 
 Method 
 
 How he used them, is a question of greater importance. He 
 describes his method in 53, 19, 6.^ The passage occurs in the 
 history of Augustus, but is so general that it may be taken to 
 apply to other parts of his work as well. 
 
 In the first place, then, it is a principle with Dio to tell us 
 what has been officially recorded on the affairs of the empire, 
 whether the official records contalin the truth or not. But he 
 will not do so uncritically. Where it is necessary, he will cor- 
 rect the official version in accordance with what he has read or 
 heard or seen. Applied to the history of Nero and his reign, 
 this would mean that with the documents in the imperial ar- 
 chives and the records of the Journals of the City, Dio has com^ 
 pared the testimony of preceding historians, verbal tradition, 
 and historical monuments. 
 
 Relation to Tacitus and Suetonius 
 
 If Dio has really followed this method, the passage disproves 
 the one-source theory, according to which Dio's work, as far as 
 the history of Nero is concerned, shall have consisted chiefly in 
 transcribing the Annals of Tacitus. 
 
 No extensive comparison of Dio's history with the Annals is 
 necessary to show that the theory is actually ill supported. Com- 
 pare, e. g. the reports of the two authors on the destruction of 
 Agrippina:^ Tacitus says that Anicelus, the commander of the 
 fleet at Misenum, who was hated by and hated Agrippina. de- 
 vised the plan to kill her and offered it to Nero while the em- 
 
 »62, 2. 
 
 ■^58, 23; 58. 23; 58, 11; 61, 21. 
 3 5^cv7rf/) K^l kyib Trnvra to. ff^r, oaa yt K<il avayKutov harai t'lirflv, uf irov Koi (Jfd^ 
 7(jTnf. (ftrynno), ftr' dvTug ovri^c t^^e Kal htpu^ iruc ^X^'- i^porfkarai fikvToi ri avroi^ 
 xal r7C ef/f/'; I'vSaaiag, tf oaov evfiixtTat, kv oJf a'/.'/o Ti ^oXTiov f/ to t^pt'Aof-.uft'or 
 f/ih'v^\^7fv Ik iroTtliJv tjv avi}rijv fj k<u iiKOvan // Kiii tU(n> r^Kuiipaa^at. 
 
 ♦Tac. Ann. 11, 3. seq.; Dio C. 61. 12. seq. 
 
 Page twenty -nine 
 
peror was at Baiae, keeping the holidays of the Quinquatrus, 
 and he says expressly that it is not clear whether Seneca and 
 Burrus knew of the plan, before it was executed. According to 
 Dio the plan was suggested to Seneca and Nero when one day in 
 the theatre they saw a ship falling to pieces, emitting wild 
 animals, and that Nero thereafter went to Campania to exe- 
 cute it. 
 
 According to Tacitus Agrippina traveled to Antium in a litter, 
 was there met by Nero and conducted to Bauli. Dio says that 
 having gone to Campania and having received his mother (in 
 Campania, of course), Nero sailed with her to Bauli on the 
 navis dolosa. 
 
 Tacitus then mentions that the plan of Nero was betrayed to 
 Agrippina, and that instead of using the ship which Nero had 
 presented to her at Bauli, she traveled to Baiae in a litter, that 
 her fears however were overcome at Baiae by the dissimulation 
 of Nero, and that here she was induced to board the ship. Dio 
 has nothing of all this, but records gorgeous banquets at Bauli 
 and Agrippina's sailing from this port. 
 
 According to Tacitus the mechanism of the ship could not be 
 made to function properly, so that the ship did not fall to pieces, 
 but, the upper part of the ship being wrecked, a falling ceiling 
 killed Crepereius Callus, one of Agrippina's two attendants. 
 Dio here contradicts Tacitus, saying that the ship did fall apart. 
 
 By Tacitus we are told that, as the mechanism did not func- 
 tion properly, the crew bore the vessel down on one side in order 
 to sink it, and that in this way Argippina and her maid were 
 thrown into the sea, while Dio sees her falling into the sea, as 
 the ship falls apart. 
 
 Surely, these differences can not be explained by mere negli- 
 gence on the part of the supposed transcriber of the Annals. 
 
 Or take Dio's record of Nero's encounter with Julius Mon- 
 tanus during one of the emperor's nightly escapades in 56 A. D. 
 Tacitus, we notice, only says that Montanus, having encountered 
 the emperor, vehemently repelled him.^ But Dio states that 
 Nero assaulted the wife of Montanus, and that Montanus then 
 gave Nero such a handling that the emperor had to keep indoors 
 for several days with black eyes.^ There is another difference 
 here. While both state that Montanus, recognizing Nero after 
 the conflict, apologized, and for this reason was put to death, 
 Tacitus relates the event to show why Nero thereafter became 
 more careful and used the services of soldiers and gladiators 
 
 Ann. 13, 2r). 
 Dio r. 61. 0. 
 
 /\i /• fhirlx 
 
when on these nightly tours, and, of course, with the further 
 object of showing to what extent Nero indulged this craze, Dio 
 uses the incident to show that Nero was not revengeful, as Mon- 
 tanus would not have been killed, if he had not shown that he 
 had recognized the emperor. 
 
 Dio has a definite charge of usury against Seneca. He tells 
 us that the philosopher had compelled the Britons to accept im- 
 mense sums at interest for the purpose of meeting obligations 
 resulting from the tyranny of Claudius, and by his unrelenting 
 demands of payment caused the insurrection.^ Tacitus has only 
 a reference to a general charge of usury against Seneca in the 
 self-defense of Suilius.- wriiCii occurred in the vear 58, while 
 the British revolt took p'ace in 61. 
 
 While Tacitus states that the cause of the death of Burrus i.> 
 uncertain,^ Dio says that Nero removed Burrus, by means of 
 poison.* 
 
 These and other examples show that Dio did not merely 
 transcribe from Tacitus, however much he may have used his 
 work. That certain passages seem to have been translated from 
 Tacitus, is no proof to the contrary ; for in other parts of Dio'i; 
 history, where transcription is out of the question, we find other 
 authors occasionally utilized in the same way.^ He may have 
 used Tacitus for his history of Nero, as he used Livy for other 
 parts of his work, omitting and protracting according to his 
 taste or interest.^ But such use would not preclude that he also 
 used other sources as much as they merited.'^ 
 
 Dio offers some information that we can get from no other 
 source. He tells us of the effect of the prince's inaugural speech 
 in the Praetorian camp and in the senate. Although it was 
 known to have been written by Seneca, it helped very much to 
 secure the government to Nero. The senate passed a resolution 
 to have the document read whenever the consuls would enter 
 upon their office, and had it engraved upon a silver tablet for a 
 public record.^ Concerning the relation of the freedman Pallas 
 to Agrippina and to the government in the beginning of Nero's 
 reign, Dio records that Pallas even appeared in public with the 
 emperor's mother, lying in the same lectica, and that Pallas re- 
 ceived embassies and wrote letters to peoples and rulers.^ From 
 
 'Dio C. 61, 1-2. 
 
 ^Ann. 13. • 43. 
 
 •Ann. 14, 51. 
 
 *Dio C. 62, 13. 
 
 »Cp. Dio C. My, S, with Cic, Phil. 61: Quani miseriun e.st. id ne.^nre !k>h 
 
 po.sso, quoU .s.t Lurp;;?siiinMvi ronrHfii. (Sihlc-r. CIc of .\ip.. p. 138.; 
 •Slh er, Cic. of Arp., p. 161. 
 ^Pauly-Wissow;.. iieviienc. d. klas.s. Altort., ill. 1714: Dio b^iiiRO. ob Tncitu.s 
 
 direla bein'-l <A. i.st. d^.n-ftf boulzutaKe v. ohl lin.-tiniTui',- v< n d-n TTrtoil.-- 
 
 rael.:;;e:i v -r.iv'int we'den. — Schwartz. 
 "Dio C. 61. 3. 
 •61, Z. 
 
 /'(;(/'• thlriy-oiic 
 
Dio we learn that Seneca and Burrus, who, after the incident at 
 the reception of the Armenian embassy in 54 A. D.,^ had con- 
 trolled the affairs of the government, no longer had such a hold 
 on Nero after the death of Rritannicus.^ It is Dio who tells us 
 of the accusations brought against Seneca in 57 A. D., among 
 which were those of adulter}^ pederasty, and extravagance, the 
 two last of which charges he holds to have been true.^ Regard- 
 ing the divorce of Octavia, Dio informs us that Burrus took the 
 part of Octavia,"* which seems to explain the circumstance re- 
 lated by Tacitus that when, soon after the death of Burrus, 
 Octavia was, divorced by Nero, the house of Burrus was as- 
 signed to her,^ and indicates that not only the common people, 
 but also the soldiers of the guard sympathized with her. Seneca, 
 we are told, before his death entrusted his writings to the care 
 of some friends, fearing that Nero might destroy them.^ Dio 
 also tells us that Nero planned to write a history of Rome in 
 hexameters, on which occasion Annaeus Cornutus played the 
 dangerous role of literary advisor to the emperor, escaping with 
 banishment as a punishment for disagreeable advice."^ Dio alone 
 records that during Nero's tour in Greece a freedman by the 
 name of Helios had unlimited power in Rome, power to con- 
 fiscate, banish, and kill plebeians, knights, and senators without 
 conferring with Nero, so that the Roman state at that time was 
 actually serving two emperors.^ This, of course, tended to 
 hasten the downfall of Nero.^ When the body-guard deserted 
 the emperor, they were obeying an order of the senate.^^ When 
 the horsemen in search of the condemned emperor approached 
 his hiding place, Nero commanded those who were with him to 
 kill both him and themselves, and being much wrought up when 
 they did not obey, he attempted in vain to kill Sporos.^^ Finally, 
 Dio's record of the events of the last two years of Nero's reign 
 and of his death, being so much more detailed than that of 
 Suetonius, has become our main source for this period through 
 the circumstance that the corresponding part of the Annals of 
 Tacitus has been lost. 
 
 As to Suetonius, the difference with regard to the plan of the 
 two authors and the scope of their works is so great as to pre- 
 clude any extensive use of Suetonius by Dio. 
 
 '61. 3. 
 
 ^61. 7. 
 
 *61. 10. 
 
 ♦62, 13. 
 
 'Ann. 14. 51. 60. 
 
 •Dio C. 62. 25. 
 
 '62. 29. 
 
 •63. 12. 
 
 •C^. Dio C. 63, 19: Hello.s urglnp Nero to return to Rome, because a great 
 
 con.splrao' waa forming. (Suet. Nero 23.) 
 "'Dio C. 63. 27: Zonaras 11. 13. 
 ' nio C. 63. 29: Zonara« 11. 13. 
 
 Pq'JC litirty-t'U'O 
 
Faults of Dio's Historiography 
 
 Dio's history of Nero is, however, faulty in more than one 
 respect. 
 
 In the first place, we notice in Dio a strong desire to entertain, 
 which evidently misleads him to sacrifice historical truth to dra- 
 matic effect. 
 
 It is interesting to notice that in the only part of the history 
 of Nero for which Dio mentions a definite source,^ he portrays 
 the British amazon Bundovica, displaying even the length of her 
 golden hair.^ Much of this may have been taken from memoirs 
 of Suetonius ^'aaii^us; ; ucw, \vv. knov.', lie wrote on his expedi- 
 tion to the Atlas in 41 A. D.^ Nevertheless, this is Dio's man- 
 ner. The whole description is too detailed to be true. Then 
 take Dio's description of the great conflagration ; it is a piece of 
 brilliant narrative, but not an historical record of events.* Or 
 compare his description of the beauty and luxury of Poppaea,^ 
 or that of the coronation of Tiridates at Rome,^^ to which he 
 devotes so much space, or of Nero's triumphal entry into Rome 
 after his athletic and theatrical victories in Greece.^ Thucydides 
 says: "The absence of romance in my history will perhaps lose 
 it the popular ear. But it will be enough if it is judged useful 
 by those who may desire an accurate knowledge."^ Dio could 
 not have prefaced his history v.-ith such a remark. 
 
 In some of the speeches we find in Dio, he imitates, like other 
 historians, a characteristic of the work of Thucydides, but he 
 does so in a poor way, a pseudo-Thucydidean way, as Hender- 
 son calls it. Here too his desire to be entertaining is too great ; 
 it results in gross exaggerations. Take, e. g. the speech of 
 Bundovica,^ which is an oration on Roman extortion and cruel- 
 ties in the provinces of the empire, designed to make the char- 
 acter of the emperor appear more despicable. Inciting her peo- 
 ple to revolt, Bundovica says : "What shame and suffering have 
 we not endured, since the Romans cast their eyes upon Britain. 
 * * * Under Roman rule you cannot even die with impunity, 
 for you know how they tax us even for the dead. Among other 
 nations death frees even the slaves, but to the Romans even the 
 dead live for their profit. * * * We have been humiliated 
 and deceived by people who know nothing but to defraud. "^'^ 
 
 •J),io C. 62, 2. 
 H2, 2. 
 
 •Plln. h. n. f). 1. II. 
 «Dio C. 62. If.. 
 '^62. 28. 
 "63, 1-8. 
 ■C?j, 20-21. 
 
 T' c. .l^bb. <;.' "k \Ai.. V. 108. 
 "Dio C. 62, ?,-^. 
 '"62, 3. i^eq. 
 
 PoLjc th\rt\-fhrcc 
 
And in her prayer to Andraste/ Bundovica is then quoted de- 
 scribing Nero as an effeminate ruling a nation of effeminate 
 men. Now Tacitus has recorded numerous processes for extor- 
 tion in the reign of Nero, stating the year in which they took 
 place. The fact that these cases were so numerous prove two 
 things, that the provinces still suffered from the injustice of 
 governors, though some of the accused were acquitted, but that, 
 on the other hand, under Nero the provinces were encouraged to 
 complain.^ And as to the effeminacy of the Romans, it is ap- 
 parent that in this respect too the speech is nothing more than a 
 brilliant piece of oratory. Tacitus too records a speech by 
 Boadicea, as he calls her, said to have been addressed to her 
 troops before the decisive battle, in which, though the extreme 
 cruelties the Britains had suffered are mentioned, nothing is said 
 about Roman effeminacy.*'^ Dio needed a strong contrast to 
 bring out the manly and heroic character of the British amazon. 
 
 The speech recorded as that of Vindex to the Gauls'* is dif- 
 ferent. Its statements are borne out by the facts recorded else- 
 where. It almost seems as though it had not been invented; it 
 might at least have been held. Likewise the speeches of Nero 
 and Tiridates at the coronation of the latter^ may be assumed to 
 have been held and recorded as held. Not only the circum- 
 stances render this probable, but -it is also indicated by the fact 
 that they are so brief, while the event is described at length. 
 Most of the speeches, however, are of little value. 
 
 Dio is also fond of recording prodigia. He both begins and 
 concludes the history of Nero by relating prodigies.^ Those 
 which were supposed to have occurred when Nero attempted to 
 cut through the Isthmus of Corinth were of some historical in- 
 terest, as they affected the undertaking."^ But as a rule, Dio, un- 
 like Tacitus, has no such interest in relating matters of this sort, 
 but is again prompted by a desire to entertain.^ 
 
 Sandys speaks of "the Roman annalists and other writers who 
 uncritically transcribed, or rhetorically adorned the work of their 
 predecessors."^ Dio, though not exactly of the former, certainly 
 belonged to the latter. 
 
 Dio claims chronological sequence for his presentation of 
 events, but he frequently disregards this. Having related the 
 death of Sabina (65 A. D.), he digresses on her beauty, and this 
 
 '62. 6. 
 
 ■'Bury. Hl.««t. of th(> Rom. Knip.. p. 20i). 
 
 'Ann. 14. 35. 
 
 «fi3. 22. 
 
 '63, 5. 
 
 •62. 1: 63, 29. 
 
 •63. 16. 
 
 '61. 2. 4. 16. 1. 
 
 •HJst. of CArrh. Scholnrsh.. III. 236. 
 
 7'(/'K thirf\-four 
 
leads him to relate Nero's marriage to Sporos, who resembled 
 Sabiina. Here he adds, however, that this occurred later. As a 
 rule, he fails to correct the false impression which he creates 
 with regard to the sequence of events; and the reader must 
 always be on his guard. We might ask whether this fault is to 
 be attributed to Dio himself or to the abridgers of his work. In 
 any definite statement regarding the date of an event or the 
 duration of a period the abridger might be guilty of the error. 
 Thus Xiphilinus and Zonaras disagree as to the length of Nero's 
 life; Xiphilinus says that Nero lived 30 years and 9 months, 
 Zonaras that he lived 30 years, 5 months, and 20 days.^ But 
 whenever the order of events is not correctly indicated, this must 
 be attributed to Dio himself, both on account of the method of 
 the abridgers and the positive disregard of chronology which 
 appears from the unabridged parts of Dio's work.^ It is Dio's 
 way to bring together incidents in no wise connected, when they 
 serve to illustrate.^ The orgies arranged by Tigellinus and the — 
 burning of Rome (64 A. D.) he puts before the Eastern cam- 
 paign of the year 63 A. D., because he wants to connect the 
 former events with incidents of the year 63, such as the divorce 
 of Octavia and the marriage of Sabina.^ 
 
 It is also a fault of Dio that he attributes motives of which he 
 has no proof. Regarding the burning of Rome, he says that 
 Nero wanted to play the role of Priam outliving the destruction 
 of his city.^ When after the conflagration the emperor levied 
 heavy taxes upon the empire, the rebuilding of Rome was only a 
 pretext, the real motive being that he wanted funds to satisfy 
 his extravagance.^ While Tacitus, as a rule, mentions several 
 possible motives, Dio does not hesitate to assign a definite 
 motive. 
 
 Finally, it is peculiar to Dio's mode of treatment that, before 
 relating the history of an emperor in detail, he gives a brief 
 sketch of his character and reign. We have this biographical 
 part preceding the annalistic also in the history of Nero.*^ It is 
 a fault "to delineate the entire character at the very beginning 
 and at once to emphasize or accentuate those traits which are 
 sympathetic to the writer, or those which he dishkes or con- 
 demns. Thus does literary ambition or a certain predilection 
 or prejudice over and over interfere with impartial historiog- 
 raphy, and the slower and more jiatient study of the career 
 
 'Dio C. 6H. IM). 7,orai;<.s 11, ):i. 
 
 ='Cp. Dio C. S7. ;J7. Sihler. C\c. oT Arp.. j). 1(i!t. 
 
 «57. 17. 
 
 ^6?. 16 -"q. 
 
 "e-.'. 1G. 
 
 "62. 18. 
 
 ^61. 1-5. 
 
 Page thirty- fi:r 
 
and unfolding of an extraordinary personality becomes quite 
 impossible."^ The judgments and deductions with which these 
 introductory sketches of Dio abound must therefore be taken 
 with great care. 
 
 Characterization of Nero 
 
 Tacitus does not spare dark colors in his portrait of Nero, 
 but has something to offset them; Suetonius is careful not to 
 omit anything in his catalogue of the vicious and shameful deeds 
 of the emperor, without giving due consideration to that which 
 was good m liis character and career; Dio exceeds both: he 
 makes a display of the evil. He records every detail of Nero's 
 nocturnal excesses in the streets of Rome ;^ he would lead the 
 reader to believe that the incest between Nero and his mother 
 was not only attempted;^ the orgies arranged by Tigellinus are 
 minutely described ;^ all the disgustingly immoral relations of 
 Nero to women and men alike, and all the loathful perversity of 
 his nature are brought out with great care ;^ the theatrical activi- 
 ties of the emperor of Rome could not be made to appear more 
 despicable.^ 
 
 But however much the picture of Nero in these respects may 
 be overdrawn, Dio has succeeded in bringing out the dominating 
 trait in this complicated character : his vanity. By indulging this 
 fault of his nature in the early part of his reign the senate pro- 
 moted the development of his other evil qualities ;^ the extrava- 
 gance of the prince was owing partly to a desire to appear to be 
 liberal;^ to behold the beauty of the mother who bore Nero, he 
 uncovered her breathless body f that he might be admired and 
 applauded, he degraded men and women of the aristocracy by 
 having them appear with him in the theatre and the circus,^*^ 
 organized an army of claquers and even used coercive meas- 
 ures ;^^ Bundovica tauntingly says that the Romans are serving a 
 lyre-player, and a bad one at that ;^^ his motive for setting fire to 
 Rome is the desire to play the role of Priam ;^^ planning to write 
 a history of Rome, he would have it consist of 400 books, and 
 banishes the learned Annaeus Cornutus for suggesting a smaller 
 number ;^^ he forbids Lucan to continue his literary activity, be- 
 
 'Sihler. Tic. of Arp.. Inti-od.. p. 7. 
 
 'Dio C. 61, 9. 
 
 «61. 11. 12. 
 
 ♦62, 15. 
 
 »61, 12. 28; 6.3. I?,. 
 
 "61, 20. 
 
 ^61, 11. 
 
 "61, 5. 
 
 "61. 14. 
 '••61. 17. 
 "61. 20. 
 '»62. 6. 
 "•62, 16. 
 "62. 29. 
 
 /\v; ' !/iiity<:'t.v 
 
cause his poems are lauded so highly ;i his tour through Greece 
 and his triumph after his return, of which there is a long and 
 detailed description, show the emperor's highest ambition : to be 
 acclaimed an Achilles and an Apollo;- when Nero finally saw 
 himself deserted by all, he planned to kill all the senators, to 
 bum the imperial city, and to sail to Alexandria, thinking that, 
 if he lost his power, his "little art" would support him there ;^ 
 and the last utterance of Nero which Dio records is the exclama- 
 tion: "O Zeus, what an artist is perishing in me!"^ 
 
 It is Nero, the vain, rather than the cruel and licentious, whom 
 Dio describes ; that vanity was one of the dominating traits of 
 Nero's character, is confirmed by Suetonius, who emphasizes it 
 together with his sensuality, and in Tacitus there is nothing to 
 disprove the predominance of this trait. May we then not, while 
 allowing for exaggeration, on the whole accept Dio's characteri- 
 zation of Nero as correct? 
 
 Resume 
 
 What then is the value of Dio's history as far as Nero's life 
 and reign are concerned? Dio's work is based on actual research 
 with the use of original documents and of the works of various 
 predecessors. But he is not thorough, his statements are often 
 inaccurate and his judgments ill-supported, and he is guided too 
 much by a desire to be entertaining, which influences his choice 
 of material and misleads him to exaggerate, to invent motives, 
 and to disregard the sequence of events. This desire to entertain 
 the reader, as well as his hatred of the imperial tyrant, also 
 makes him overdraw the character of Nero, but on the whole his 
 characterization of the emperor is true. The value of Dio's 
 Life of Nero then lies chiefly in supplying information, which 
 other sources do not give us; it supplements to some extent 
 Tacitus, and to a greater extent Suetonius. 
 
 Result 
 
 Of the works of the many who have written the history of 
 Nero, "some of whom," according to Josephus, "have departed 
 from the truth of facts, out of favor, as having received benefits 
 from him, while others, out of hatred to him and the great ill- 
 will which they bare him, have so impudently raved against him 
 with their lies that they justly deserved to be condemned,"'^ we 
 
 '62, 29. 
 '63, 8-21. 
 »fi3, 27. 
 *63, 29. 
 
 Wnliq. 20, S. 1. 
 
 Piiifc thirty-seven 
 
possess only a few; and if these were to be numbered with either 
 of the two classes named, or their successors, it should be the 
 latter. But we can not class them with either, in spite of the 
 faults that we have found. 
 
 Not only the Annals of Tacitus, but also the Life of Nero by 
 Suetonius, and even the History of Nero by Dio Cassius are 
 based on actual research. All three have compared a number of 
 sources, and among these were some original documents. 
 
 But the three historians were not equally thorough and careful 
 in their research nor equally faithful in recording the truth. In 
 both respects Tacitus ranks much higher than Suetonius and 
 Dio Cassius, and must therefore be preferred to them where 
 the;* disagree with him, except in such instances in which it is 
 quite evident that he has erred. ^ 
 
 Although the character and life of Nero, as well as his reign, 
 would no doubt appear in a somewhat more favorable light, if 
 he had his Velleius, as Tiberius has, or if the historical writings 
 of Claudius, the Memoirs of Agrippina, and similar records had 
 been preserved, yet the history of Nero, in the main, rests upon 
 a fairly safe basis. 
 
 A few statements of the historians are placed beyond doubt 
 by the testimony of inscriptions and coins. 
 
 Inscriptions 
 
 When Nero was declared an enemy of the state, this act of 
 the senate was combined with a "damnatio memoriae." Accord- 
 ingly the official records in marble and bronze, of which there 
 must have been many, were ordered destroyed, or if they were 
 not to be destroyed entirely, the removal of the hated tyrant's 
 name from the inscriptions was demanded. The result is 
 that very few inscriptions remain, and still fewer remain in- 
 tact. These are, of course precious, while the value of the 
 nameless inscriptions that seem to belong to Nero's reign is more 
 or less doubtful. 
 
 We have already referred to the votive inscription to Nero 
 which was found at Marquesia in Lusitania as showing the ex- 
 tent of the Neronian persecution of the Christians.^ 
 
 An inscription that is dedicated to Nero as a flamen of the 
 deified Augustus by his fellow members of the college of 
 Augustan priests shows that it was part of the emperor's policy 
 
 'Hermann Scliiller, Goschichte d. rwm. Kaiperrelcbes unter d. Nero. p. 22-23. 
 -See p. 15. OruteH In.'*rr. 238. 9. 
 
 Pa ic thirly-nqht 
 
to emphasize his relation to Augustus, an effectual means of 
 securing to himself the attachment of the Guard.* 
 
 Coins 
 
 Since the year 44 B. C, a short time before Caesar's death, 
 Roman coins became documents of the imperial history of Rome. 
 For then the senate passed a resolution to replace the head of 
 the god which theretofore Roman coins had borne on their face 
 by the head of the dictator. The right of coinage, which in 
 accord with custom, was exercised by generals in their provinces, 
 Caesar had already assumed also in the capitol.^ The senate, 
 however, had also enjoyed that right, and continued to do so 
 even under Augustus. In 15 B. C. a definite arrangement was 
 adopted whereby the emperor reserved to himself the right of 
 coining gold and silver, and left to the senate only the coining 
 of copper. This circumstance indicated the change that had 
 taken place in the form of government. The republic had been 
 converted into a monarchy.''^ After the year 11 B. C. the names 
 of the directors of the mint (triumviri monetales) no longer 
 appear on the extant coins, the last name being that of C. Sul- 
 picius Platorinus, which is found on a coin with the head of 
 Agrippa, who died in that year.^ From this time on the face of 
 every Roman coin presents the picture of an emperor or of some 
 member of his family, while the reverse side is a memorial of 7 
 
 some achievement of his or some act of benevolence bestowed 
 by him.* From this time on then the coins become in a greater 
 measure records of imperial history. 
 
 Not a few of the extant coins belong to the reign of Nero. 
 In connection with the literary sources, these coins form a 
 valuable kind of evidence, notwithstanding the autobiographical 
 nature of the data they furnish. 
 
 Thus a number of coins throw light upon Agrippina's relation 
 to Nero and to the imperial government during the early part of 
 his reign. When the Parthians arose in 54 A. D. the people. 
 says Tacitus, asked what dependence the state could repose in a 
 man governed by a woman.^ Tacitus also tells us how through 
 Nero the mother controlled the senate ; that at the instigation of 
 \grippina the senate was called to meet in the palace, where. 
 :oncealed behind portieres, she could overhear the discussions. 
 
 »Grutori In.scr.. 237. 1 : NEROXl. CAE.SARI. GERMANI F. TIB. AIJGUSTI N. 
 
 DIVI. AT'G. PRON. FT^AMTNI AUGli^TAlJ. Op. Snet. Noro 7; Tnr. 
 
 Ann. 13, 19: 14. 7. 
 'Mommsen, Rof^ni. Muen;:\v-OMe<u, p. 7"9 aeq.; cp. Eckhel. 
 •MojTjm.sen, TJobftr d. roem. Muenzwesen, I. 1. 
 ♦Eckhel. p. 123. 
 
 "Pftter, Die KO.!chichti. L.t.. 1, 2r.<). 
 •Ann. 13. 6. 
 
 Page thiriy-ninc 
 
and that she openly opposed some measures.^ He shows to 
 what extent Agrippina had assumed control of foreign affairs 
 by relating that at the reception of the Armenian embassy in 
 54 A. D., she attempted to ascend the imperial tribunal and to 
 preside jointly with the emperor, an attempt that was frustrated 
 only by the prudence of Seneca.^ Dio says that in the begin- 
 ning of Nero's reign Agrippina conducted all the affairs of the 
 government for him^ and in his name.^ The records of the coins 
 very strongly confirm these statements. 
 
 Two coins from the early part of Nero's reign are described 
 by Eckhel as follows:' 
 
 AGRIPP. AUG. DIVI. CLAUD. NERONIS. CAES. MATER. 
 
 Capita advcrsa Ncronis nudum, et Agrippinae. 
 
 NERONI. CLAUD. DIVI. F. CAES, AUG. GERM. IMP. TR. P. 
 
 Corona quema, inter quam 
 
 EX. S. C. AV. AR. 
 
 NERO. CLAUD. DIVI. F. CAES. AUG. GERM. IMP. TR. P. COS. 
 
 Capita jugata Neronis nudum, et Agrippinae. 
 
 AGRIPP. AUG. DIVI. CLAUD. NERONIS. CAES. MATER. EX. S. C. 
 
 f)uae figurae, quarum dexterior aquiJa)ii legionariara, altera hastam, et 
 
 pateram tenet, sedentes in quadrigis elephcntontm. 
 
 AV. AR. 
 
 The picture and name of an empress on Roman coins was ( 
 nothing new. There are coins which bear Livia's title and 
 image ;^ but these are not among the imperial coins.'^ As far as J 
 the extant Roman coins show, none bore the image of any of 
 Nero's wives, not even that of Poppaea Sabina.** Agrippina was 
 the first woman whose head appeared on imperial coins along 
 with that of the Princeps, first with that of Claudius,^ and then 
 with that of Nero. 
 
 It is noteworthy that all of the coins that are symbolic of her 
 co-regency are imperial coins, while the senate, it seems, did not 
 issue such coins. ^^ This circumstance already indicates the 
 opposition of the senate, which was united with Seneca and 
 Burrus, the counselors of the Princeps, whose influence, how- 
 ever, as yet was not sufficient to warrant any open interference 
 with Agrippina's acts. They had to suffer for a while that "she 
 behaved as the regent of the empire. "^^ 
 
 'Ann. 13. 5. 
 
 'Ann. 13. 5. Dio C. 61. 3. 
 
 »Dio C. 61. 3. 
 
 *Zonaras 11, 12. 
 
 •Eckhel. p. 262. 
 
 •Eckhel, p. 149. 
 
 'Eckhel. p. 148: Commatls Romani numua vivo maiito .si^natus non extat. 
 
 •Eckhel. p. 285. 
 
 •Eckhel. p. 257. 
 
 '•Schiller. Gesch. d. roem. Kaiserz. I. 344. 
 "Bury. History of the Rom. Emp.. p. 275. 
 
 /'(I'lr fnrtx 
 
It was not until Agrippina had lost her influence over Nero 
 that Seneca and Burrus put an end to her rule. The love affair 
 with Acte, the dismissal of Pallas, Agrippina's adulterer and 
 political consort, from his office as treasurer, Agrippina's threat 
 to espouse the cause of Britannicus, and his resulting death 
 early in the year 55, mark the removal of Agrippina from 
 participation in the government. From Tacitus alone^ we 
 learn the time of this important change. But the coins confirm 
 his statements. The first of the two coins described was issued 
 soon after Nero's accession, before he entered upon his first 
 consulate. The second is of the year 55, for it designates Nero 
 as consul, and this was the year of his first consulship. The coin 
 shows that at the beginning of 55 Agrippina's influence was still 
 strong. But on a coin recording Nero's second tribunate (55 
 A. D.),^ and on another recording his third tribunate (56 
 A. D.),^ the mother's image and inscription is not found, nor is 
 it found on any later coin. Seneca and Burrus are now admin- 
 istering the affairs of the empire. 
 
 Greek and Egyptian coins commemorating Nero's "victories" 
 on his tour in Greece are testimonies to his vanity, perpetuating 
 the memory of "NERO APOLLO."* 
 
 'ABB. It. 14. MQ. 
 
 •TM. Abb. It. iL 
 ^Bckhel. p. xet. 
 
 PBckhci. p. rt: 
 
 Page forty-ont 
 

Bibliography 
 
 In the following list only those works are mentioned which 
 the writer in the limited time that was at his disposal could 
 actually use. A comprehensive list of works on the subject will 
 be found in Henderson's "I,ife and Principate of the Emperor 
 Nero." 
 
 I — Sotirce Books. 
 
 ComelU Taclti Libri qui supersunt, ed. Carolus Halm. Leipzig, Teub- 
 
 ner, 1912. 
 C. Suetoni Tranquilli quae supersiint omnia, rec. Carolus Ludovicus 
 
 Roth. Leipzig, Teubner, 1871. 
 
 Hermann Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. Leipzig, Teub- ~ 
 ner, 1883. 
 
 C. Plinii Caecili Secundi, epistularum librl novem, eplstulanim ad 
 Traianum liber, Panegyricus, ed. H. Keil. Leipzig, Teubner, 1853. 
 
 Dlonis Cassii Cocceiani historia Romana, ed. Ludovicus Dindorfius. 
 Leipzig, Teubner, 1864. 
 
 loannis Zonarae epitome Ihistoriarum, vol. III., ed. Ludovicus Dindor- 
 
 flus. Leipzig, 1870. 
 Paull Orosli adversus paganos historiarum librl VIL 
 
 B^lavi Joseph! opera omnia, ed. Immanuel Bekker. Leipzig, 1SG6. 
 Vol. III. 
 
 Busebii Pamphili historlae ecclesiasticae librl X, ed. F. A. Heinichen. 
 Leipzig, C. G. Kayser, 1827. 
 
 [ani Gruteri, inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Roman!. 
 
 Foseph Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, Pars II., Vol. VI. Vindo- 
 bonae, 1796. 
 
 II — Works on the Sources and Other Works. 
 
 I 
 
 I Sari Nlpperdey, Cornelius Tacitus. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhand- 
 ' lung, 1871. 
 
 T. A. Rupert!, C. C. Tacit! Opera. Hannover, 1834. 
 
 L Draeger, Ueber Syntax und Stil des Tacitus. Leipzig, 1882. 
 I fan Bergmans, Die Quellen der Vita Tiber!! des Cassius Dio. Amster- 
 ' dam, Hoeveker und' Wormser, 1903. 
 
 ). Clason, Tacitus und Sueton, Breslau, 1870. 
 
 jlermann, Peter, Die geschichtllche Litteratur ueber die roemlsche 
 Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I, Leipzig, Teubner, 1897. 
 
 r. Boissier, Tacite. Paris, Librairie Hachette Et Cie, 1903. 
 
 lenry Fynes Clinton, Fasti Roman!. Oxford, University Press, 1846. 
 
 ohn Edwin Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship. Second Edi- 
 tion. Cambridge, University Press, 1906. 
 
 Ohn Edwin Sandys, A Companion to Latin Studies. Cambridge, Uni- 
 versity Press, 1910. 
 
 'auly, Realencyclopaedie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stutt- 
 gart, 1846. 
 
 'auly-Wissowa, Realencyclopaodie der klassischen Altertumswissen- 
 schaft, 1899-1900. 
 
 "euffel and Schwabe, History of Roman Literature. London, George 
 Bell & Sons, 1891. 
 
 .. S. Wilkins, Roman Literature. London. MacMillan, 1914. 
 
 'hei>dor Mommsen, Roemisches Muenzwesen. Berlin. Weidmannsche 
 Buchh., 1860. 
 
 Page forty-three 
 
Theodor Mommsen, Ueber das roem. Muenzwesen. Klelne schrlften 
 
 aus d. Abhandlungen d. k. saechslschen Gesellschaft der Wissen- 
 
 schaften, voL II. 
 Ed. Aug. Freeman, Methods of Historical Study. London, MacMlllan, 
 
 1886. 
 E. G. Sihler, Cicero of Arpinu-^. New Haven, Yale University Press, 
 
 1914. 
 
 Ill — Modem Works on the History of Nero. 
 
 Hermann Schiller, Geschlchte der roemischen Kaiserzeit Gotha, 1883. 
 
 Hermann Schiller, Geschlchte des roemischen Kaiserreichs unter der 
 
 Reglerung des Nero. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1872. 
 
 B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero. 
 London, Methuen & Co., 1903. 
 
 J. B. Bury, A History of the Roman Empire. American Book Co. 
 
 Charles Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire. Fourth 
 Ed. New York, Appleton, 1889. 
 
 H. F. Pelhain, Outlines of Roman History. New York, Putnam, 1893. 
 
 Edw. Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 
 Philadelphia, Porter. 
 
 Samuel Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. London, 
 MacMillan, 1898. 
 
 W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170. 
 New York, Putnam, 1893. 
 
 Ludwlg Friedlaender, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Em- 
 pire. Authorized Translation of the Seventh Enlarged and Re- 
 vised Edition of the Sittengeschlchte Roma by L. A. Magnus. 
 New York, E. P. Dutton & Co. 
 
 I 
 
 SU '^^'^ 
 
 Page forty- four 
 

'\^ -.."^ "-..^" 
 
 ^^l'^.'' '^^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^* !. 
 
 /.•4^;:/x /.c>^,-"°o /\.^;\ co^^- 
 
 :^9^ 
 
 
 O « O 
 
 HO^ 
 
 
 o*^ 
 
 
 ,1^ -» o 
 
 
 
 :-.%, ,*^/;;i^*-."^.. ,^*\vA>°;%'^... ,^^*;^^''.% 
 
 .^^ d- Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces' 
 
 ^^< 
 
 -f^S- 
 
 7 ^ 
 
 
 ^* '^ -^ '.V 
 
 o 
 
 l>^ c»„T •-."%. 
 
 ■?- 
 
 
 f^ iPr, 
 
 "^--0^ 
 ^9^ 
 
 ^c 
 
 -0- 
 
 .«. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: ^^y ^OW 
 
 ♦•^^z^. PreservationTechnologies 
 
 AWOHLO LEABER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 111 Thomson ParH Dnve 
 CranbefTy TownjJitp. PA 1G066 
 
 ^01 
 
h 
 
 C N O a \J 
 
M\i\i' 
 
 \'\ 
 
 ■:;■:::•;• •.■•>l'i:;'!-'''-.'.-';iJi'i;;'!.'iffl 
 
 i\:w'.^\-^:';;,;r:n'!;!!;i:;"!i!::i>i'(H 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 lit 
 
 'i:n:i 
 
 
 
 .1..'' ' .^ 
 
 
 
 ilU: 
 
 ,H.. •. 
 
 
 yMm. 
 
 w