Dialogues and Their Disturbances Under Nero

Prof. Dr. Michael Rathmann
in cooperation with Jun-Prof. Dr. Nadin Burkhardt

Project duration: Oct 1, 2021 – Sept 30, 2023

Planned publication: Edited collection

The planned project on emperor Nero (period of governing 54-68) proceeds from the thesis that dialogues and especially their disturbances can be found especially often in connection to ruler personalities known for their bad reputation in antique texts; or, respectively, that the disturbances of dialogues help to establish such a bad reputation in the first place. The project thus puts a focus on the dialogical processes that help to create a colourful historical image of a supposedly insane princeps as well as his relationship to the Roman senatorial elite.

This research endeavour is rooted in the idea that in most cases the narratives of persons and periods in antique cultures are shaped by the elites of that time. They are thus based on dialogical processes within one sociopolitical group. Accordingly, the nobility’s dialogical culture together with its parameters of evaluation are crucial for understanding the respective person or period. Already in Herodot, the father of historiography, we find that central statements are always ascribed to groups. Concerning the great conflict between Greek cities and the Persian Empire, we read that “the Persians are saying, however” or, for instance, “the Athens are saying.” In this way, we are offered statements of reflection that follow from dialogical processes.

For various reasons, Nero presents himself as an ideal object for investigating these dialogical processes and their disturbances. For once, we have for his period of rule an unusually good basis of sources, which encompasses the entire range of literary documents. The breadth of the sources makes it possible even to separate between self- and outside perception as well as to analyze the dominant negative image of a supposedly bad ruler on multiple levels. Are we dealing in Nero’s case with a basic communication disorder, as A. Winterling sought to argue for Caligula, or are the parameters for Nero’s case maybe more complex than that?

Archaeological forms of testimony can be considered alongside the different written documents. Architecturally, the emperor created new forms of representation which also served as places for communication; however, only for a selected audience. In this respect, one can name the luxurious lake-side villa at Sublacus (today Subiaco) in Latium that was used by Nero and other high-ranking Roman families. Constructing large fountains and spacious parks as well as organizing festivals were further part of the standard of living and the means of displaying grandeur. This also applies to Rome: half of its inner city had to make way for the Neronian city villa at the site where the Colosseum was to be built later. At the same time, on the Palatinum Nero displayed in his rooms of representation an unprecedented level of splendor. This drive to new forms of self-representation extended to his portraits as well: he created a new type of portraiture and did not shy away from monumental gold-plated sculptures. Rome’s center was restructured according to his building plans and the city served as a stage for him. The innovation of Nero’s aspirations becomes apparent in his decision to express his position as princeps through his residential buildings rather than through religious or public constructions. All of this shows a new and changed understanding of society and its forms of communication, which this project wants to investigate more closely.