The Burning of Rome; the contrasting accounts of Suetonius and Tacitus

Suetonius writes about Nero and the Fire of Rome in the chapter entitled ‘Life of Nero’ in The Twelve Caesars. Published in 121 A.D, 53 years after the death of Nero and 57 years after the Burning of Rome, Suetonius explicitly condemns Nero as the perpetrator, yet tamely informs the reader of the consequences. Contrastingly, Tacitus’ account of the Burning of Rome focuses on the effects of the fire, and not so much about the origins of it, although, a rumour of the Emperor’s joy encircled Rome just as the fire did. One can assume that as Tacitus’ was around nine years of age when Nero ‘set fire to Rome’, he experienced the sights and the horrors of the fire first hand – however, as a nine year old the validity of his experience can be hugely questioned.

As Tacitus’ work was published a few years before Suetonius, we can assume as there is very limited information of the rule of the Roman Emperors, Suetonius must have referred to Tacitus’ work and used it to help form his own opinions of the incident. It is also important to note that Suetonius was working as Emperor Hadrian’s secretary at the time of publication and it is possible that as Hadrian was part of the Nervan-Antonian dynasty, he used Suetonius’ authorship to be able to shame Nero and the Julio-Claudian dynasty. When reading both accounts of the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD, Suetonius immediately starts by addressing Nero as the villain, and that he unmercifully ‘spared…neither the people of Rome, nor the capital of the country.’ However, the first sentence of Tacitus’ account addresses both Nero and then draws the attention away to the ‘violence of fire’.

Although Suetonius appears to implicate Nero, he only does so half-heartedly; by excluding the horrific scenes of the fires in Rome, the grieving families, the ruined architecture, temples and stately homes of the Romans, he automatically loses the imaginations of readers. For example, ‘a vast number of stately buildings, the houses of generals celebrated in former times, and even then still decorated with the spoils of war, were laid in ashes’. There is a positive spin to this sentence until you get to the last four words – why did Suetonius not completely try to denounce Nero? Possibly because if he had tried to do so in a way that connected with the reader, for example, the tragedies of the then homeless Romans, it would have become too similar to the works of Tacitus, therefore he had to draw on the Emperor’s reactions.

The lexis of Suetonius’ account is very mild and timid compared to that of Tacitus. His language is very much an undertone of the passage, appearing to try to let the words tell the story and have the story of Nero’s treachery speak volumes. Whereas Tacitus’ account includes a lexicon of violence and creates a much more vivid picture of the effect of Nero’s suggested ‘disgust with the old buildings’ which lead to him ordering Rome to be set on fire, according to Suetonius. This literature, at the time of publish, would have been enlightening to the people of Rome, and to those whom read of Nero’s wrongdoings – mainly because there were very few stories which told otherwise. It is clear when forming an opinion on Nero from the main sources such as Suetonius and Tacitus, that you cannot ever make that opinion final; you must learn to question the reliability of what is written on the page, but also the context in which it was written.

A Certainly ‘Awful’ Pope

Today I am dedicating this blog update to a very despicable, dishonourable and disturbing man. This is a very curious thing to do as I just noticed, and maybe some of you have noticed as well, that I usually write about people’s history, mankind good causes and hope. However, this with perhaps the addition of my update for the month of violence is rather a dark, grim one.  Today I am talking about a man who many would probably not know and many others most likely would not like to know, just like myself. Today, I am presenting you the story of a rather young man called Octavian, that lived during the Middle Ages, in the first part of the 10^th century in one of the most important places in the world at the time: Rome, and more precisely the Papal States. I am talking indeed about the man better known as Pope John XII, who was pontiff of the Catholic Church from the 16^th of December, 955 to the 14^th of May, 964. It is a funny story this one of John.

One could say he had a nice easy-going life right from the beginning. He was son, possibly illegitimate, of Alberic II, Prince of Rome. The ruler apparently liked his child enough to pretty much proclaim him as both pontiff and ruler of Rome despite Octavian being barely 18 years old, as it seemed to be his wish right before he died[1].  I guess one could say that for being such a young pope he did not do too bad…Unless we take in account the fact that apparently the young man has very lusty, lascivious habits that managed to create and spread rumours (or most likely facts rather than rumours) about his governance over the Lateran palace and how it was becoming pretty much a brothel[2]. It is true that the situation involving the papacy had started a long marathon of degeneration since the unfortunate murder of Pope John VII in 882. Figures like Pope Stephen VI did not do much to clean the papal reputation, but only made it worst with his macabre displays of authority[3]. This has not been said to excuse young Octavian, but rather to make clear things were getting ugly…and he only made them uglier. So it happens that the young man was not so good in assuring his secular authority. In fact he was in a very bad position, constantly threatened by Berengar II of Ivrea, the man who had been ruling the majority of Italy since 950, a man of power and therefore ambitious[4].  Being Octavian an inexperienced, weak ruler he tried to seek help and thought to have found an ally in Otto I, who was looking feverously for a way to increase his renown and authority. As many may probably know already Otto I was after the imperial crown, he wanted the power his ancestors had time ago back. And if you would be the Pope, knowing the man and knowing what he wanted, would you not offer this as a sign of alliance? Would you not give the imperial crown to Otto so he could help you against Berengar? Of course, but would you do it even if it was an action against your recently deceased father’s will? Well, he did.

 

The alliance worked perfectly fine for both factions and soon Otto was crushing down some annoying Lombards and later on marching to Rome, imposing his authority and pleasing the Pope all at once! Good for him, you would think, and good for the Pope as well, right? Well, I am afraid to say that not so very much. Unfortunately for John XII (or at least it seems that he saw this as a very unfortunate thing to happen) Otto re-established a set of donations and privileges that his ancestors Pepin and Charlemagne has long ago granted the papacy, which are known to us as the Ottonianum. This was indeed a contract between the holy roman emperor and the papacy that granted back lands to the pontiff and provided him with imperial defence[5], which does not seem like a bad deal at all. Nonetheless, in addition, the pope also had new obligations towards the emperor due to this issue: he had to swear loyalty to the imperial crown, and be subjected to imperial approval when papal elections took place[6]. A little price for a huge favour it seems to me, but it seems that John XII thought that was far too much, and therefore unacceptable. Considering this facts, I guess the next stage in this story seems to a certain degree obvious. As J.N.D Kelly states in his text about our protagonist:

            “Pope and emperor had been mutually mistrustful, and when Otto left Rome to fight Berengar, John, who had looked for a protector not a master, immediately began intriguing against him with Berengar’s son Adalbert, and also with the Magyars”[7].

 

But it did not work too well for him. Otto was not a man oblivious to reality and eventually he found out. With the whole power of the imperial army and an angry, betrayed man on its command the Pope felt the necessity to flee to Tivoli…with the papal treasure, of course, just for safe keeping. It does not seem surprising then than at this point the many member of the ecclesiastical order charged against him because of his appalling misbehaviour…And of course, Otto joined in accusing the Pope of perfidy and treachery[8]. Octavian was deposed shortly after -Dec., 963- but he could not just take the fact that it was the end of his rule. Reason why, he managed to come back for a moment, by provoking a revolt in Rome against the empire and their puppet Pope, fact that backed him up and granted him the papal authority once more[9]. Otto, possibly quite desperate at this point, marched again into Rome to finish off the business he probably should have done earlier, for once. Nonetheless, the cowardly vicious Pope had already gone…Again…This time he found refuge somewhere else (you know if you repeat locations far too often the end up catching you…). For this particular occasion his holiday paradise was the area of Campagna…Funnily enough, the man died there. Apparently he found refuge with a married woman, and some sources seem to think this lusty act caused him a stroke that killed him shortly after (although other sources seem to think that the husband of the woman found him and so beat him to death).

 

What a charming, lovely and loyal man. Just for the record he was not even 30 when he died. So here we have a man who first of all betrayed his religious convictions and the ideals that he was meant to be defending. Second of all, a child that had been granted everything and betrayed his father’s last wish. Also, the same man who betrayed his one ally despite all the benefits this union was granting him. And finally he was coward, greedy man who fled his city and his people, with the treasure because he was scared of the consequences of his actions, which finally led him to his death. So just to clarify, we are talking about betrayal to the Catholic Church, to the city of Rome and its inhabitants, to the Holy Roman Emperor and to his own father…There are not enough words to describe these certainly despicable actions of treachery…

What made him a traitor or how did he become one? It seems likely to me in the case of other figures we have exposed here this month that sometimes a traitor is made by history itself, or by points of view. Sometimes the term traitor do not totally fulfil the definition of the persona described…But in this case I think that betrayal ran on his veins, it was something natural to him, perhaps due to his cowardly nature and inexperience, perhaps due to his ‘prince’ background…Perhaps just because he could, though it is true that some people are just born to be nasty and mean and exploit their natural resources for such purpose. These are the kind of traitors that history should be searching for, the professional ‘back-stabbers’ rather than perhaps the people than trying to do their job fell into treason, or that seem to have fallen in treachery because of ideals for a better world.

 

Excuse my ramble about ‘despicability’ and nastiness about this man and others. But I hope you now have a wider idea of what makes a traitor, or at least a historical one.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, B., Medieval Germany 500-1300: A Political Interpretation (London, 1997)

Fleckenstein, J., Early Medieval Germany (Amsterdam, New York and Oxford, 1978)

Heer, F., The Holy Roman Empire (London, 1968)

Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996)

Parsons, Z., ‘The 6 Most Awful Popes’, Something Awful,(Apr., 2008)

http://www.somethingawful.com

---

[1] J.N.D.Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996),p. 126

[2] Ibid., p. 126

[3] F.Heer, The Holy Roman Empire (London, 1968), p. 37

[4] B.Arnold, Medieval Germany 500-1300: A Political Interpretation (London, 1997), p. 84

[5] J.N.D.Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996),p. 127

[6] J.Fleckenstein, Early Medieval Germany (Amsterdam, New York and Oxford, 1978), p. 149

[7] J.N.D.Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1996),p. 127

[8] Ibid., p. 127

[9]http://www.somethingawful.com

From 1669 to 2011: March=Natural Disaster

March brought with it one of the most terrible volcanic eruption of the early modern period. It happened around the 8th of March, 1669, in the lands of Sicily, terrorized by their eventually active phoenix: Mount Etna.

“Multiple eruptions over the next few weeks killed more than 20,000 people and left thousands more homeless. Most of the victims could have saved themselves by fleeing, but stayed, in a vain attempt to save their city”[1]. For those that might not know the circumstances of the events, let me introduce you quickly to the topic.

 

During the muslim occupation of Sicily, between the 9th and 11th century, this place used to be called Gibel Uttamat, which means mountain of fire [2]. The people from medieval times clearly knew about the dangers of living in that area, and still they did not move away. Why? Well, there is a clear reason. It happens that the area of the alluvial soils near by this mountain, in the Plain of Catania and near by the mouth of the River Alcantara, are one of the most fertile of the whole region[3]. And we all know how important is agriculture today…Imagine in the pre-industrial times! It was something vital.

Thus, the people from these lands co-exist with the threat of rivers of lava and ash clouds…Thus, when the Etna started to make the earth move, people did not leave. The village of Nicolosi was soon covered by tones of lava[4] making its way to a bigger town: Catania. Knowing about the fate of Nicolosi and smaller communities, a group of citizens leaded by a man called Diego de Pappalardo, decided to go up to the volcano and try to divert the flow of lava[5]. In relation to this, there is some controversy about the conflict with the people from the area of Palermo.It is believe that the people from the southwest area knew about the movements up at the Etna and noticed that the changes on the lava-river flow would lead the deadly substance to their fields. Thus, the citizens of this area “literally fought back the Catanians, while the lava break hardened and filled again”[6].

After this issue, a law was established in Italy forbidding the interference with natural flow of lava, that lasted for over hundred years [7]. And this, you would think, is the end of the story. However, I am afraid to say that it is not. The Etna has erupted several other times before and after this, and the reaction towards this events have not being precisely giggles. But this is not the reason why I am talking today about the Etna, or why I think it is relevant.

As I am sure you all know, the 11th of March this year, a terrible earthquake and tsunami have made the Japanese population being scared. It was the 11th of March of 1669 when the Sicilian people could see with their own eyes that the signs the full-of-liquid-anger mountain had been sending, were quite real. I have to say that when we were planning the updates for this month the Etna was on our list…but this was on February, and there was no possible way to know this horrible thing would be happening on the other side of the world…

With this post, me, and the whole team, want to send our support to our Japanese friends here in England, that are so far away from home and are grieving for their relatives and friends. But also to every single human being affected by these events, wherever they are.

And for those of you that are reading this, please think about what I am going to send next. Nature, as history, repeats itself. Sometimes even at the same time of the year, or place…Sometimes not. But it is there. We should not try to play God, as the people of Catania did, because we do not know the consequences it might have. It might save us, but it might kill others. Nonetheless…We can learn a lesson from the past, be aware of the terrible catastrophes that have already occurred and be ready for the ones that surely will come.

Because, as long as the planet exists and we populate it, things will happen…And so history will be written. The worst we can do is decide that both nature and history simply does not happen…

 

*COURAGE!*

 

Bibliography & References:

1. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts
2. D.K Chester, Mount Etna: the Anatomy of a Volcano (Stanford, Cal., 1985) 38
3. D.K Chester, Mount Etna: the Anatomy of a Volcano (Stanford, Cal., 1985) 50
4. http://halconesenlahistoria.blogspot.com/2009/03/7-de-marzo-de-1669-el-volcan-etna-entra.html
5. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts
6. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts
7. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mount-etna-erupts

For those that like to have some sort of visual references of historical events, I recommend to take a look at this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/etnaboris/520372570/

It is a flickr photo gallery with a section on the fresco attributed to Giacinto Platania, in the Cathedral of Catania, in which the events that took place in March, 1669, are represented.