Puer delicati were relatively common in Ancient Rome among the elite. For example the emperor Augustus was known to have one called Sarmentus. In Suetonius’ account of Augustus’ life he tells us that Mark Antony made scandalous accusations against Augustus in an attempt to tarnish his reputation: these were mainly that he had sold his body to leading men (including Julius Caesar) – but crucially there is no mention of his Puer Delicati. In fact Suetonius instead tells us that Augustus was a womaniser who enjoyed deflowering virgins. This overlooking of Sarmentus links to how the Romans viewed homosexual relationships and sex. For the Romans what was more important was who was submissive/dominant in the relationship: having sex with a male slave is not scandalous as they are clearly submissive to their master, on the other hand prostituting yourself or sleeping with freeborn men is more scandalous because socially they would be considered equals.
In the Satyricon by Petronius, a fictional “novel” (in a loose sense of the word), a decadent and extravagant freedman called Trimalchio, known for his vulgarity, makes mention of his frequent sexual relations with one of his slaves, a puer delicati, who we are told was also frequented by Trimalchio’s wife too. This may be taken as a source of Trimalchio’s vulgarity, but it seems to be the way in which Trimalchio frequents his delicati that is considered tasteless, showering him with gifts and showing him too much affection. But Trimalchio having a delicati in itself is not considered vulgar, in fact the main character of the Satyricon has a younger male lover himself!
The emperor Domitian was known for having a puer delicati, Earinus, who is openly praised in the contemporary literature. For example the poet Statius compared their relationship to Zeus and Ganymede, who in mythology was a young boy known for his looks, swept up by Zeus to Olympus to serve as his cupbearer. Statius also wrote other poems favourably describing these relationships for other contemporary elites. In Statius’ poetry there is a clear affectionate relationship between the master and his delicati, in direct contrast to Trimalchio who for similar affection seems to be portrayed as vulgar or distasteful.
So the conclusion about how Romans viewed these types of relationships is a bit contradictory. But we can make some conclusions that will be applicable to Nero:
puer delicati were always slaves, and always in a submissive role towards their master
they were far more common in Rome than we might imagine, though mainly among the elite
though these relationships can be affectionate, showing too much affection or pushing the boundaries of the submissive/dominant relationship seems to be what causes backlash
Is Nero a bad emperor?
There’s countless stories about his corruption and malice, but as you note these largely come from the likes of Tacitus, Suetonius, and those who followed their works; in short, it is a reputation largely given to us by the senatorial elite, who for the most part despised Nero both for his populist style of government and for the extravagant public and private works he constructed across the empire using higher taxes on the upper classes.
Some of these sources are contradictory, for example, the Great Fire of Rome – as an example, there seems to be disagreement amongst the sources of the fire’s significance, its cause, and where or what Nero was doing during the fire. We know about the fire from three sources – Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Tacitus – none of whom were writing contemporarily to the fire. Those sources that were contemporary and talk about the fire, such as Fabius Rusticus, Marcus Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder, have not survived to the present day, but even Tacitus tells us that they were contradictory and exaggerated (hardly a surprise from the latter of these three, who described Nero as an ‘enemy of mankind’, Natural Histories 7.8.46).
Now, the part that is interesting about the fire is that despite coming to us through sources hostile to Nero, their discussion of what happens after the fire is perhaps telling to why the people might have thought Nero was a good ruler. While Cassius Dio and Suetonius tell us that Nero sang ‘The Sack of Ilium’ as the city burned (hence the legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned; Cass. Dio, 62.16; Suet., Ner. 38), Tacitus instead tells us that Nero was in Antium at the time but returned to Rome to organise a relief effort immediately upon hearing news of the fire, paying for the removal of bodies and debris with his own funds, opening his palaces to provide shelter for the homeless, and arranging the delivery of food supplies across the city to prevent starvation (Tac., Ann. 15.39).
After the fire, we know from both Suetonius and Tacitus that he made efforts to rebuild the city in a safer fashion, and make the city safer generally to lower the risk of future fires (Suet, Ner. 16; Tac., Ann. 15.43). While there were rumours that Nero himself had started the fire (eg. Cass. Dio, 62, Suet., Ner. 38; Tac., Ann. 15.38-44), that Tacitus notes Nero’s presence in Antium at the time might suggest that there was some other cause beyond Nero’s control or inclusion (indeed, Tacitus suggests as much; Ann. 15.38f.), and it doesn’t appear to have dampened public support for Nero all that much, especially when considering his actions to reinvigorate and relieve the city after the fact. Shifting blame to the already unpopular Christians probably helped him, too (Tac., Ann. 15.44).
Beyond his efforts after the Great Fire, Nero’s popularity with the people is more clearly seen in the East, where he was hailed as ‘The New Apollo’ and ‘The New Sun’. This popularity is likely from the peace that Nero secured with the eastern kingdoms of Armenia and Parthia, who had been quite the thorn in Rome’s side for some years. This peace was so popular within and without the borders of Rome that the Armenian capital, Artaxata, was renamed ‘Neroneia’ in his honour (albeit temporarily). Nero even sent a fortune of 50 million sesterces, as well as architects and construction experts, to rebuild the city after Rome had previously razed it during an invasion in AD 59.
Even after Nero’s death his popularity in the east persisted, as we can see with the Nero Redivivus legend, the claim that Nero was not actually dead, and would return to reclaim his throne. This legend was particularly popular in the east, where in later years numerous pretenders to the imperial throne would claim to be Nero reborn to muster popular support (see Cass. Dio, 66.19; Suet., Ner. 57; Tac., His. 2.8). Dio Chrysostom tells us that in his time the people not only believed Nero to still be alive, but even wished he was (Dio. Chrys., Or. 21.8), and the legend was so popular and pervasive that even Augustine of Hippo, writing in the fifth century, discusses it (albeit in the context of Nero being the Antichrist; August., De civ. D. 20.19.3).
Tacitus’ discussion of Nero’s death is also revealing for how the public viewed Nero, as he tells us that while his death was welcomed by the upper class, while the lower classes and slaves – for whom Tacitus spares no harsh words in describing – were mournful (Tac., His. 1.4). The military were also divided, with many still holding loyalty to Nero at his death and even those who turned against him had done so through bribery and intrigue rather than through any dissatisfaction (Tac., His. 1.4). In the east in particular, Nero’s death was more openly mourned (Philostr., VA 5.41). Indeed, his popularity was such that both Otho and Vitellius after Nero’s death evoked his memory to appeal to the populace; Otho used ‘Nero’ in his name, and erected statues to Nero (Suet., Oth. 7), while Vitellius’ brief reign began with a large state funeral for Nero (Suet., Vit. 11).
Considering Tacitus’ admission that the upper classes were happy with Nero’s death – and his overall unpopularity with them in his life – it’s hardly a surprise that most sources regard Nero as a despicable tyrant and terrible emperor. The sources that discuss his reign were written by members of the upper classes who were notably biased against him; Josephus, even while calling a Nero a tyrant, acknowledges this bias and condemns those who ‘out of hatred to [Nero]…have so impudently raved against him with their lies,’ (Joseph., AJ 20.8.3). It is worth noting, though, that this bias does go both ways, as the only overwhelmingly positive source we have on Nero is Seneca the Younger, who was Nero’s teacher and died in Nero’s lifetime (see Sen., Apocol. 4). Considering as well that a number of our sources were written during the Flavian period immediately after Nero’s death, we might consider these works to not only be an exercise in upper class bias against a populist emperor, but also an effort of propaganda by the Flavians and their senatorial supporters to condemn the memory of Nero and bolster their own standing in contrast.
“The Great Fire of Rome” by Stephen Dando-Collins. In the introduction, he points out that the cult of Christus (which became Christianity) had very few adherents in Rome proper at the time of the Great Fire. Dando-Collins also takes time to explain that the ancient sources current historians use are not the original productions by the Classical Era authors, that they were recopied and recopied through the ages and that copyists (often Christian clerics/clerks) may have inserted various ideas that weren’t part of the original texts.
Propaganda against Nero
Yes there was propaganda against Nero, just like any Roman emperor.
Our views of Nero are shaped by the views of the Roman aristocracy, who are the class that composed almost all surviving Roman literature. Our most detailed accounts of his reign come from Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio Cassius, none of whom was a contemporary of Nero but all of whom were hostile to him. Many other writers are known to have written about Nero, but little of their texts survives. Already in antiquity, the historian Josephus noted that writings about Nero tended to be biased, either for him or against him. (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.8.3)
There are good reasons why members of the Roman elite would be biased against Nero. Nero was the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors, the first dynasty of emperors who began with Augustus. The Julio-Claudians had to figure out how to rule as absolute monarchs over a society deeply attached to republican ideals. The emperors had to balance the interests of three main constituencies: the Roman aristocracy, who wanted to compete for prestige and position; the people of Rome, who expected their government to provide for their welfare and respond to their needs; and the Roman army, who wanted good pay and opportunities to improve their lot. Conflicts among these groups had marked the last century of the republic, and the reign of the Julio-Claudians shows improvisation and experimentation as successive emperors struggled to work out a formula that would secure their power without alienating any of these groups to the point of active revolt. Some emperors were more successful in this task than others, but by the time of Nero, no one had quite figured out a reliable way of balancing all these interests.
Nero’s early reign was well received by the aristocracy. He was more attentive to their interests than the preceding emperors had been. As his reign went on, however, he increasingly showed favoritism to a few close associates at the expense of the rest of the aristocracy. But perhaps more importantly, he appears to have tried to change the role of the emperor to rely more on the support of the people and less on the aristocratic class.
Nero initiated a serious of large building projects, which aristocratic writers generally condemned as self-indulgent follies, but which may have been intended as economic stimulus projects. Under Nero, Roman sliver coins were first debased, which the aristocracy considered a moral failing but which, again, may have been intended to help poorer citizens make ends meet. Nero put much of his energy as emperor into staging public performances with himself in the lead role; these, too, were condemned by the aristocracy as self-aggrandizement, but may have been intended to offer the people a closer connection with and access to their emperor. According to our sources, Nero was active in directing the recovery efforts after the great fire, including opening his palaces to house the homeless and ensuring that food supplies were brought into the city. The stories that Nero gave a musical performance on the fall of Troy while Rome burned, or had even started the fire himself, probably come from resentful elite gossip rather than fact. (Tacitus, Annals 15.39)
Since we only have hostile sources to work from, though, it is hard to say how effective Nero was at gaining the support of the people or how well thought-out his plans were. The image we get from the aristocratic sources is of a vain, self-absorbed man who overdid everything and preferred dramatic spectacle to the hard business of rule. This impression may be overdrawn and unfair, but we can’t be certain that there was nothing behind it. Nero’s actions as emperor did tend toward big, dramatic gestures, and even if they were well-intended, we can’t say how well they actually worked in practice. The self-dramatizing megalomaniac of our surviving sources is probably an invention of hostile aristocrats who resented Nero’s turn toward the people, but that doesn’t necessarily make all their criticisms of his reign groundless or unfair.
We don’t have sources from the ordinary people of Rome to tell us how they felt, but there is some evidence that he was remembered fondly. The biographer Suetonius tells us that for many years after his death, people placed flowers on his grave, or spread rumors that he was still alive and would return to Rome triumphant. An impostor later showed up in Parthian Empire claiming to be Nero and caused some diplomatic tensions with Rome, which suggests that there were those who would have welcomed his return. (Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars, “Nero” 57)
Tacitus The Annals of Imperial Rome has him doing:
Nero ordered the death of several people (his mother and step brother Brittanicus)
He reportedly played his lyre while Rome burnt.
He blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome and was the first to persecute them. This, of course, made him less popular in the later Empire.
He was also considered very vain and bribed the judges in the Olympics to make him the winner.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/496880
Leave a Reply