(24 May 2021) LEAD IN:
Was the Roman Emperor Nero really the bloodthirsty tyrant portrayed in ancient accounts of his reign?
A new exhibition at the British Museum in London takes a fresh look at the man and questions the reliability of his myth.
STORY-LINE:
History has not been kind to Nero.
He was the last male descendant of emperor Augustus and ruled the Roman Empire from AD 54 to 68.
He left behind an image of cruelty and ruthlessness, depicted as a man who murdered his own mother and 'fiddled while Rome burned".
Many of his statues were defaced, decapitated or destroyed after he was declared an enemy of the state and forced to kill himself in AD 68.
But is his reputation fair?
A new exhibition at London's British Museum is delving into the past to explore the man behind the myth.
"The mad tyrant fiddling while Rome burned, the matricidal maniac, the deluded artist, so this is the sort of popular Nero, the Nero we love to hate," says Francesca Bologna, the exhibition's curator.
"Our goal here really is to show that, however popular the image, these are actually based on very, very biased account."
Nero stands accused of arranging the murder of his own mother, Agrippina.
He claimed she had planned to assassinate him, but his enemies painted him as a matricidal tyrant.
His first wife Claudia Octavia also met a bloody end – she was executed on charges of adultery. But she had been a popular figure amongst the public and her death caused some unrest and further stained Nero's reputation.
But the most famous charge levelled at Nero comes with the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64.
The blaze destroyed huge swathes of the city and the emperor's detractors said he played the fiddle while Rome burned.
But Bologna says the truth is quite different.
"Fiddles didn't even exist at the time," she explains.
"Of course, when they say fiddle, they meant he was playing the lyre while Rome burned and well, he wasn't in Rome when the fire started. And from what we know when he arrived, he led the relief efforts. So not playing the lyre in his palace, especially because at the time, his palace was actually in the middle of the fire as well. So not very wise to stay there."
Nero spearheaded the rebuilding of Rome after the fire, amending planning laws, constructing beautiful yet practical buildings for the population, and possibly generating mass employment for the city's poor who had been left homeless and penniless by the blaze.
Evidence suggests the emperor was well loved by the public of the time.
So where does Nero's terrible reputation come from and why?
That's all to do with who writes history.
Accounts of Nero's reign were recorded by a group of elite Roman writers who had an agenda.
Nero was the last emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
After his death there was a year of civil war and then a new dynasty, the Flavians, took control of the empire.
In a move that might seem familiar to modern politics, there was strong motivation to paint the previous administration in a bad light.
So writers of that period should not be considered neutral.
Bologna says there is a wider lesson to learn.
"It's about how we should approach information, how we should always approach our sources critically. And this is relevant for Nero, it's relevant for historians, archeologists, it's relevant for everyday people living their everyday lives. It is relevant now, will be relevant in the future, because approaching information critically is always relevant," she says.
The exhibition includes around 200 objects which chart Nero's rise and fall.
Find out more about AP Archive: [ Ссылка ]
Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
You can license this story through AP Archive: [ Ссылка ]
