Bringing/Burning Down the House in the Reign of Tiberius/Nero

Rebecca M. Edwards (Wright State University)

Previous scholars have noted the parallels between Tacitus’ account of the reign of Tiberius and that of Nero. Beginning with the name shared by the two emperors, their mother’s manipulative influence, and their rather sketchy ascensions to power, Tacitus takes the parallels further than do other authors, even using similar language in his openings of the narratives of the two Julio-Claudians (See esp. Martin, CQ n.s. 5 (1955) 123-128). The most striking parallel is, of course, found in the phrases “primum facinus novi principatis” (Ann. 1.6.1) and “prima novo principatu mors” (Ann. 13.1.1), but others exist. In this paper I would like to compare the account of the disaster at Fidenae and the subsequent fire on the mons Caelius in Book 4 of the Annals to the events of Book 15.

In Book 4 of the Annals, during a sojourn to Campania specie dedicandi some temples, Tiberius is nearly killed by a cave-in at Sperlonga (Ann. 4.59). Only the vigilance of his prefect Sejanus saves him. Tacitus follows his account of the cave-in at Sperlonga with two natural disasters—a cave-in of the amphitheater at Fidenae, and the fire on the Mons Caelius—both of which require the aid of the princeps. The Romans blame their emperor for these natural disasters and the emperor’s escape from the cave-in at Sperlonga is contrasted with the casualties at Fidenae. Nevertheless, due to the emperor’s generosity after the fire, a proposal is made that the Mons Caelius be renamed in his honor, a proposal which Tiberius turns down. He then leaves Rome for good and ensconces himself on Capri.

In Book 15, Nero decides to test his theatrical talent in Campania (Naples). While Suetonius’ account (Nero 20) mentions only an earthquake, Tacitus (Ann. 15.34) claims that after the show was over and everyone had left, the theater collapsed. Subsequently, Nero decides to turn Rome into his own private playground, and his prefect Tigellinus, builds a floating island (if you will), around which many of the debaucheries (like those on Capri) take place. The senate cannot decide if they are better off when Nero is at Rome or far away, not unlike the position of the senate under Tiberius. The question is answered when the great fire breaks out, supposedly caused by Nero’s desire to rebuild the city in his own image and name it after himself. Nero, instead of leaving town after helping people recover from the fire, turns the city into his own private house. Instead of moving the court to Capri, he’s bringing Capri to the court, and in turn, to Rome.

The language employed by Tacitus in narrating these episodes as well as the juxtaposition of the episodes of collapsing theaters and burning cities calls to mind the comparison initiated by the similarities in the narratives surrounding the successions of Tiberius and Nero. But these similarities are then used by Tacitus to show the differences between the reigns of the two emperors. The collapse of the amphitheater at Fidenae occurs because the emperor hates the theater. That is obviously not the case with Nero. Likewise, after the fire on the Mons Caelius Tiberius aids owners in rebuilding their houses but then absconds to Capri to fulfill his lusts. Nero, on the other hand, absorbs the land cleared by the fire and fills Rome with his home. Tacitus thus shows how the principate has come full circle and the problems which began under Tiberius culminate in the reign of Nero.