Nero's Golden House And Its Ideology

[caldrail]

One thing I've noticed about the extravagantly wealthy and famous is that they do like extravangant dwellings. There's nothing discreet about such people. Modern celebrities are exactly the same - its an outward symbol of their ego and status. Nero was no different. Once mother was out of the way he had no impediment to express himself in such a way. Remember that he was feted and cheered by the public, and sucked up to by those people closest to him. Nero was in a way divorced from reality because he had little direct contact with it. Of course he knew some people were poor. He saw that every day but that was a fact of everyday life - they were lesser mortals. If you doubt this I can assure you how easy it is to become like that. My own experience in rock bands has shown me how our perception and self image changes according to other peoples reactions to you. I stand by what I said previously - that Nero had the Golden House built to house his own ego.

[phil25]

And I still argue that while that might be one facet of the reasoning (and I do not disagree with you), it does not begin to accommodate all the angles that need to be understood.

 

But I would question one thing, and that is whether there is a touch of anachronism in the modern/ancient analogy?

 

As I perceive the sources, the Julio-Claudians (from Caesar himself to Nero) lived cheek by jowl with their subjects/fellow citizens in a way that modern celebrities and rulers do not.

 

Caesar lived in the Subura and then in the Villa Publica just off the Forum. Augustus' town house was modest. Tiberius (or his immediate successors) extended the Palatine palace, but perhaps more as offices than living quarters. When Tiberius needed solitude he retreated to Capri, not by building a new dwelling in Rome.

 

These principes went to the Curia and to other ceremonies on foot, kept from being accosted too much by lictors, but much closer to the mob than modern equivalents ever get. They held daily levees for their clients

 

So I am not sure that I altogether accept that this desire for extravagance would necessarily express itself in the way you suggest in Rome in the 60s AD.

 

Now copying other analogues might: Alexandria? for instance. But then you know my speculations about an Antonian thread in imperial policies that links IMHO Gaius and Nero.

 

No doubt this one could run and run!!

 

Phil

[Ursus]

There was a thread about this in the religion folder. Let me see if I can find it and merge the topics.

 

Edit: done!

[phil25]

Thanks Ursus - very helpful indeed.

 

Phil

[frankq]

These principes went to the Curia and to other ceremonies on foot, kept from being accosted too much by lictors, but much closer to the mob than modern equivalents ever get.

 

Indeed, Claudius, during a famine, passed through the Forum and got pelted with bread.

[caldrail]

And I still argue that while that might be one facet of the reasoning (and I do not disagree with you), it does not begin to accommodate all the angles that need to be understood.

 

But I would question one thing, and that is whether there is a touch of anachronism in the modern/ancient analogy?

Phil

 

I would say not. As I've mentioned before human beings are no different now than in the ancient world. Our reactions to situations are broadly the same, although our culture allows and expects different behaviour. Now I do agree that modern extravagance tends to be more isolated (big palatial houses are rural more often than not) but thats more a reflection of the modern obsession with privacy, something the ancients never worried about.

 

The romans weren't an alien species. Much of their decision-making and behaviour are instantly recognisable to us, and I see it as no coincidence that much of our modern western life resembles theirs.

[phil25]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, Caldrail, and if that explanation satisfies you, sobeit.

 

Personally, I think it a dangerous assumption.

 

As The Augusta perceptively observed in another thread, a posters views on homosexuality "then and now", said more about the poster involved than the past.

 

Privacy did mean something different in 1st Century Rome, and was as dissimilar to our notions as the same concept was to both in (say) Tudor times. But as several authorities on Roman house design have commented, the Romans had concepts of intimacy and confidentiality, that were reflected in their archieteacture and the plans of their dwellings - see for instance the House of the Vetii in Pompeii.

 

But that's by the by. What I feel most undermines your explanation is that nero and Domitian (essentially close contemporaries) the latter of whom was familiar with the former's buildings, appears to have had a totally different concept of the Palace/Urbs relationship that did his predecessor.

 

Now I am quite prepared to agree that ideas can change, even in a couple of decades, but Domitian's building and concept, which we can analyse and explore more readily than Nero's, self-evidently had a number of dimensions - both figuratively and practically. It was sophisticated in concept and purpose.

 

Yet you would deny that to Nero and ascribe everything (seemingly) to what might be summarised as "megalomania".

 

Domitian too suffered from that disorder, yet he was capable of conceiving and fostering a huge building though probably less of an "artist" than Nero.

 

Was Hadrian's vast villa at Tivoli/Tibur simply an exercise in extravagance? Would anyone who has read about that emperor ascribe such a simplistic purpose to that complex man?

 

In our own time, Hitler and his new Reichs Chancellery, was certainly carrying out ideas about public buildings that appealled to him, but he had other purposes too - to impress both on his own and Germany's behalf, to awe and frighten state visitors; to act as a magnificant backdrop to state and party functions. His own apartments were small and ordinary as they were in all his residences including the berghof.

 

But the last analogy is simply to underline my point - I am not suggesting that Nero and Hitler were similar in ANY way. Simply that buildings have many facets and purposes, and we need to recognise that fact.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

"Now I can really live like a human being..."

 

Nero, on completion of his Golden House and parkland surroundings amongst the ruin of the great fire.

[phil25]

But we know nothing of the context of that alleged remark, or the tone in which it was made - witty, cynical, joking, serious, heartfelt, ironic.... each tone could make the words mean something different.

 

Like Gaius' alleged remark that his horse Incitatus would make a better Consul than many senators, the words can be made to have a different intent - perhaps wholly false - depending on who is quoting it.

 

I find that ancient quotes can illumine or enliven a "fact" - but it is unwise to make them the sole basis on any contention.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Some people today believe that the earth is flat.

Some people believe that the pyramids are alien warehouses.

Some people believe that Stonehenge is a UFO refuelling facility.

Some people believe that the Maya are descendants of stranded aliens.

Some people believe that Atlantis was a civilisation of superior wisdom and technology.

Some people believe that the Domus Aurea has deep mystical significance.

 

You know what? Its all moo pooh. The earth is very spherical, pyramids are monuments, stonehenge is a crude calendar, the maya are very human, Atlantis was a city that once existed on the volcanic cone within Santorini (the cone is no longer there by the way!), and the 'Nero Code' is best left to Dan Brown.

 

What angles are you talking about? Its a palace Phil25, nothing more. It was a statement of wealth and status. There is no deep inner meaning to it any more than the pyramids have deep arcane secrets.

 

Ancients are just as dodgy as modern ones - I agree - but just as revealing.

[phil25]

You allegation tht a "palace is just a palace" runs counter to all we know of the symbolism developed on the palatine by Augustus (relating to Apollo); to the work of Domitian and later Hadrian - all within the same broad cultural environment as Nero.

 

Is the Temple of Venus & Rome (AMOR/ROMA) withoy symbolism or deeper meaning?

 

Sorry, Caldrail but Nero and his advisers were much more sophisticated than you make out. Demonstrably so IMHO.

 

Phil

 

PS Is there any purpose in my continuing this dialogue with the deaF?

[caldrail]

You allegation tht a "palace is just a palace" runs counter to all we know of the symbolism developed on the palatine by Augustus (relating to Apollo); to the work of Domitian and later Hadrian - all within the same broad cultural environment as Nero.

 

Is the Temple of Venus & Rome (AMOR/ROMA) withoy symbolism or deeper meaning?

 

Sorry, Caldrail but Nero and his advisers were much more sophisticated than you make out. Demonstrably so IMHO.

 

Phil

 

PS Is there any purpose in my continuing this dialogue with the deaF?

 

I'm not blind. I'm sorry also but you're chasing intellectual concepts about things that are nothing more than decoration. Sophistication? Now thats a dangerous word to use when judging peoples efforts. Where did I say they were unsophisticated? Nero was educated, patronised and practised the arts, led a real party lifestyle, and made some really dumb decisions. One of which was to build this large house for his personal use on land that shortly before had been areas of dwellings for his subjects until the great fire. He just couldn't resist the temptation to show off.

 

Temples are decorated with imagery of mythology. So? Is there some secret message hidden away amongst the marble busts and frescos? No, there isn't. All humans are able to determine patterns (thats how we interpret the world) and sometimes we long to be able to see more than the next guy. I was going to say lets not stray into Dan Brown territory. I've changed my mind.

 

Phil25 - If you think there is some hidden message in the Domus Aurea - Then please enlighten us and stop playing mind games.

[phil25]

I have already set out my views at least twice on this board, Caldrail.

I am certainly not playing mind games with anyone.

 

In short - and though I may be wrong, I thought I recalled you discussing them previously - I suggested that (and this is a hypothesis only) that Nero's domus may have involved elements of:

 

Hellenistic palace design (in particular the palace quarter of Alexandria where there was a royal compound - this might also relate to my putative Antonian thread in early principiate rule

 

a mixture of public, private and mixed elements which draw individuals into ever greater intimacy and thus honour (this draws on modern scholarship in the study of internal spacial relationships in Pompeiian domestic architecture

 

new ideas of monarchical rule - Gaius and Domitian salso eem to have played with absolutist symbolism (but not JUST as extravagance)

 

a new concept of Rome as imperial "capital";

 

a newer addition to my thinking, is the the creation of an imperial complex akin to that Hadrian later conceived at Tibur/Tivoli

 

Now I do not claim any of this to be more than speculation, but all those suggestions are soundly based in the period and constitute more than design.

 

But I see no purpose in continuing this discussion with you, frankly, given your tone.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

[\quote]Hellenistic palace design (in particular the palace quarter of Alexandria where there was a royal compound), a mixture of public, private and mixed elements which draw individuals into ever greater intimacy and thus honour (this draws on modern scholarship in the study of internal spacial relationships in Pompeiian domestic architecture)[\quote]

 

Thats architecture. If you to discuss the relative aesthetic and practical qualities of the Domus Aurea why not? But thats not ideology is it?

 

[\quote]new ideas of monarchical rule - Gaius and Domitian salso eem to have played with absolutist symbolism (but not JUST as extravagance)[\quote]

 

Nothing new whatsoever. Of all the people who achieve a level of power as these men did then you 're bound to find a few who get carried away. Nero was no exception. His mother was dead, Rufo, Burrus, and Seneca desperately trying to distance themselves from this once insecure young man who now becomes a serious danger to them, and a new crowd of sycophants who are isolating Nero from reality. Further, his expanded ego now identifies with Apollo due to his artisitc aspirations and whilst it may not be megalomania, it does come into the realm of self-delusion. The crowds who witness Nero performing applaud however bad he was - and whilst the impression we get is someone of mediocre talent, he receives first prize without question. People feign death or pregnancy to leave his performances early. He takes to the chariot in races, something normally performed by slaves. He falls off twice, doesn't finish, and still takes the podium to receive first place. He takes to a rock'n'roll party lifestyle even to the extent of publicly play-acting as a woman. This is the way a personality cult develops. Absolutist symbolism? No. Thats an invented term. It was ego, delusion, and poor judgement. Neither Gaius or Domitian were playing at being top of the tree - they were.

 

[\quote] A new concept of Rome as imperial "capital"[\quote]

 

Huh? It already was. There was nothing new about Rome being capital, and simply because Nero wanted it renamed 'Neropolis' is another example of his uncontrolled ego and there are plenty examples of this kind of self-aggrandisment in the ancient world where power was usually absolute.

 

[\quote]But I see no purpose in continuing this discussion with you, frankly, given your tone[\quote]

 

Well thats up to you. But this post was about the ideology of the Golden House and so far there's almost nothing you've written that discusses it.

[phil25]

OK Caldrail.

 

My ideas stink - are completely lacking in novelty or interest - are over complex and sophisticated - mix ideas such as design and ideology.

 

I bow to your total superiority, knowledge, grasp of first century politics and thought, and bow out defeated, grovelling and demonstrably wrong.

 

You have driven me into slough of my own making, I am unable to argue further against your brilliant logic, your masterful deployment of the facts or your charisma.

 

Everything on every subject you discuss is exactly as you say.

 

Phil