Nero is undoubtedly one of the most controversial Roman emperors. Scandals‚ tyranny‚ depravity‚ and murder marked his turbulent reign. However‚ Nero’s infamous reputation is based mainly on the accounts of the historians who lived and wrote decades after the emperor’s death. In fact‚ most of Nero’s life and reign are covered in the works of three historians – Suetonius‚ Tacitus and Cassius Dio. Except for Tacitus‚ the sources are hostile to the last Julio-Claudian emperor‚ depicting him in the worst possible light. Unsurprisingly‚ all historians were senators‚ and Nero’s conflict with the Senate of Rome led to his death. Things are not much better with the early Christian writers. Emperor Nero was‚ after all‚ responsible for the first Persecution of the Christians. Whatever its real extent‚ long after Nero’s death‚ he was given the epithet of Antichrist and played an important role in shaping Christian religion.    Only by reading the sources carefully and understanding the historical context can we gain a more balanced and nuanced understanding of one of the most fascinating figures in Roman history.   Most Objective Source for Emperor Nero: Tacitus Publius Cornelius Tacitus‚ 56 – 120 CE.   All three principal sources for Emperor Nero’s reign‚ including Tacitus‚ were senators. However‚ unlike other historians‚ Tacitus was more lenient‚ trying to portray the controversial ruler in more neutral terms. Born around 56 CE‚ during Nero’s reign‚ Tacitus was only eight during the Great Fire of Rome. However‚ Tacitus had access to the official records and eyewitness accounts‚ which allowed him to make a detailed account of the disaster. According to Tacitus‚ Nero was not a culprit and did his best to help the victims. Tacitus also left us the earliest account of the persecution of Christians. Nero’s reign is the last chapter of Tacitus’ masterpiece‚ the Annales‚ which begins with the death of Emperor Augustus. Unfortunately‚ both the Annales and its counterpart‚ the Histories‚ are only partly preserved‚ with several books lost.   The Fire of Rome‚ by Robert Hubert‚ 1771. Source: Musée d’art moderne André Malraux‚ Le Havre   As a member of one of oldest Roman families‚ Tacitus was a staunch Republican‚ and his works‚ such as Germania‚ or more famous Agricola reflect his moralist views‚ criticizing the greed and tyranny of the expanding Roman Empire. Writing under the Flavian dynasty‚ Tacitus was worried about the growing power of the emperors and the diminishing of the Senate. Yet‚ despite his own agenda and prejudice‚ Tacitus tried to describe the events as they happened‚ avoiding embellishment.    No wonder that Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians.   Biographer and Gossiper: Suetonius Nero Walks On Rome’s Cinders‚ by Karl Theodor von Piloty‚ 1861. Source: The Hungarian National Gallery   A stark contrast to Tacitus‚ Suetonius was fond of rumors and gossip. He was born around 69 CE‚ after Nero’s death‚ but he lived and worked during the reigns of the emperors from the Flavian and Antonine dynasties. Suetonius was also a close friend and secretary of Emperor Hadrian‚ who granted him privileged access to the imperial archives and libraries. Suetonius was particularly interested in the lives and characters of the emperors rather than their political and military achievements. Thus‚ Suetonius searched for anecdotes‚ scandals‚ and salacious stories‚ which he presented in a lively and entertaining style. In addition‚ he had an agenda against the Julio-Claudian emperors‚ as tarnishing their names strengthened the legitimacy of the later imperial dynasties.   His most famous work – the Lives of the Twelve Caesars – is a collection of biographies of the first twelve Roman rulers‚ from Julius Caesar to Domitian. Like the rest of Julio-Claudians (except‚ perhaps‚ Augustus)‚ Nero is portrayed as a depraved‚ extravagant‚ irrational ruler who indulges in various vices and perversities.   Suetonius accused Nero of committing incest‚ adultery‚ rape‚ murder‚ and‚ worst of all‚ matricide. He is also the one who blamed Nero for the Great Fire of Rome‚ and even omitted or distorted the facts to further his agenda – he was no stranger to inventing things that had never happened. Thus‚ Suetonius’s account of Nero should be read with skepticism and criticism.   The Historian Writing Long After Nero’s Death: Cassius Dio Death of Nero‚ by Vasily. S. Smirnov‚ 1888‚ State Russian Museum‚ St. Petersburg   Like his two predecessors‚ Cassius Dio was a historian and a member of the Roman Senate. He wrote the Roman History‚ the most comprehensive history of Rome from its foundation to his own time. Cassius Dio was born around 155 CE‚ almost a century after Nero’s death‚ but lived and worked during the reign of the Severan emperors. He was a Greek by birth but a loyal and pragmatic Roman who supported the imperial system and the stability it brought.   Thus‚ for Cassius Dio‚ Nero was a wicked‚ arrogant‚ and incompetent ruler who wasted the resources of and endangered the security of the Roman Empire. He also accused Nero of killing his family members‚ such as his stepbrother Britannicus‚ his wife Octavia‚ and‚ worst of all‚ his mother Agrippina the Younger. The historian also blamed Nero for the Great Fire of Rome‚ the Jewish revolt‚ and the rebellion of Vindex and Galba‚ which led to the emperor’s downfall.   While Cassius Dio gives us important information on Emperor Nero‚ he is also a distant source that relied much on the earlier works. He had an agenda‚ which influenced the selection and interpretation of the evidence. Cassius Dio often simplified or generalized the facts to fit his historical and philosophical framework and to present moral and political lessons. Therefore‚ his account of Nero’s life and reign should be read with caution and criticism.   Emperor Nero as the Antichrist: The Early Christian Writers Eusebius of Caesaria‚ 260-349 CE.   While all three historians were somewhat critical of Nero‚ the arrival of Christianity would turn the last Julio Claudian emperor into a literal Antichrist. Tertullian‚ Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea were three Christian authors who lived in the late third and early fourth century CE. They all wrote about Nero‚ focusing on his infamous Christian persecutions and martyrs. They also associated Nero with the Antichrist‚ the enemy of God and his chosen people – the Christians. However‚ the three differed in their sources‚ methods and purposes.   Constantine’s vision of the cross‚ by Raphael. Source: Vatican Museums   Tertullian was the earliest of the three. He was a Latin rhetorician and apologist who defended Christianity against pagan critics and philosophers. He expected Nero’s return as an Antichrist to face God’s wrath. Lactantius was one of the advisors to emperor Constantine the Great and the author of “On the Deaths of the Persecutors‚” describing the deaths of persecutors of Christians such as Nero or Diocletian. Eusebius of Caesarea was a Greek bishop and historian who narrated the history of Christianity from the apostolic age to his own time. As one of the chief advisors of Emperor Constantine‚ Eusebius produced a biography of the first Roman Christian emperor. For Eusebius‚ the reign of Constantine was the triumph of Christianity and the end of Persecutions‚ which had begun with Emperor Nero.

  When thinking about animals in ancient Rome‚ the first image that may come to mind might involve a gladiatorial arena. In an attempt to broaden the animal imagery‚ perhaps you think of animal sacrifices‚ cattle being sold in marketplaces‚ horses as means of transportation and part of warfare‚ or some rare delicacy occupying the center of the table at a lavish convivium. But what about pets? Did the ancient Romans even have pets? And if they did‚ what kind of pets did they have?   Dogs Roman mosaic at the House of the Tragic Poet‚ 1st century BCE‚ Pompeii‚ National Archaeological Museum in Naples. Source: Mitch Barrie / Flickr   Even if one would allow for the image of a dog in an ancient Roman setting‚ considering how the Romans are usually viewed mostly as soldiers and rigid politicians‚ one would suppose dogs were used for hunting‚ tracking‚ and guarding property or cattle. And one would be right. Dogs were‚ in fact‚ used in wars and for hunting purposes‚ in warfare‚ as well as for guarding‚ as the most famous mosaic from Pompeii (Cave canem that is) attests‚ but they were also present in the role of man’s best friend! What is more‚ Toynbee‚ a notable English historian‚ comments that “love for canine pets in particular was one of the most attractive features of the ancient Roman character.”   We can even talk about different breeds of dogs‚ as the Romans did. For example‚ the Laconian and the Molossian were used for hunting and guarding livestock‚ and these types of dogs are discussed in great detail by authors dealing with agriculture. As for pet dogs‚ a famous breed was the Melitan: a lap dog. This long-haired dog with short legs and a pointy nose can be seen in sculpture and is known to have been popular among the higher-class citizens.   Grave Stele for Helena 150–200 CE. Source: the Getty Museum   However‚ not much is known about the lives of pet dogs in their owners’ homes. Written sources do not usually deal with such topics‚ but we can say as much on the basis of many surviving dogs’ tombstones and epitaphs: they were loved and cherished and missed‚ not at all differently than we feel about our pets today‚ as this epitaph for a beloved dog called Myia will attest:   “How sweet was she‚ how kind‚ the one who lay in lap while alive‚ always a friend in sleep and bed. Oh‚ what a shame‚ Myia‚ that you have died… You barked only if some rival lay with the mistress‚ unrestrained. Oh‚ what a shame‚ Myia‚ that you have died! The deep grave already holds you unaware‚ you cannot go whild‚ nor spring at me‚ nor cheer me up with your pleasant bites.”   Cats Cat attacking a quail‚ 1st century BCE‚ Pompeii‚ National Archaeological Museum in Naples. Source: Carole Raddato / Flickr   Perhaps unexpectedly‚ cats were not popular pets among the Romans. Yes‚ there were cats in Rome‚ many of them actually‚ and they were probably brought there on ships by the Greek colonists. Osteological evidence places the earliest finds in the 5th century BCE. There are not so many skeletons from the Republican Era‚ but the numbers grow towards the imperial period.   Cats in Rome were mostly seen as mouse-catchers and pest-repellers. They even had to compete with weasels and ferrets for the title of rodent controller‚ as these animals were kept in Roman houses for that purpose. One look at Pompeian mosaic depictions of cats might be enough to show how some (or most?) Romans viewed cats.   Aside from towns and villas‚ cat remains have been found in military forts and outposts. Cats were valuable companions to soldiers because the helped preserve food by exterminating mice and rats. According to Donald Engels‚ the author of Classical Cats‚ the Latin word cattus in the meaning of cat was first used in military context (as a name for a century).   Funerary stele of a girl with her pets‚ a rooster and a cat‚ 2nd century. Source: Museum of Aquitane‚ Bordeaux   Although no cats seem to have earned an epitaph like many dogs‚ they can be found on some funerary stelae‚ mostly as companions to children. Even though they were perhaps not seen as close companions‚ they were sacred to the goddess Diana and respected for their independence‚ autonomy‚ and freedom.   Birds Birdcage‚ a detail from a wall painting in Livia’s villa at Prima Porta‚ 1st century BCE National Roman Museum. Source: Finestre Sull’ Arte   The widely known poems of Catullus about his girlfriend’s sparrow and its death (Catullus 2 and 3)‚ might‚ if read literally‚ lead us to the wrong impression that birds were widely cherished pets in ancient Rome. Birds were indeed kept as pets and were rather popular‚ but seemingly more as a status symbol. Quality birds‚ such as lovely singing nightingales‚ were expensive‚ and if we were to trust Pliny‚ they could reach the price of a human slave! This is not to say that pet birds were not loved by their owners‚ only that literary and artistic evidence shows birds caged in a household setting or as a form of entertainment (talking birds). They were certainly not the object of many epitaphs‚ as were dogs. Moreover‚ Martial wrote an epigram ridiculing bird burials.   The birdcage as an artifact seems to be a distinctive Roman feature. According to Pliny‚ the first man to invent the aviary was a Roman as well. Although no physical evidence remains‚ written sources mention cages made of silver‚ gold‚ ivory‚ and tortoise shell.   Birds outside of cages were present in the gardens of Roman villas due to the adequate scenery: trees‚ bushes‚ and fountains‚ but obviously‚ these could not be construed as pets. So‚ what kinds of birds were kept as pets?   Ancient Roman fresco depicting a bird‚ 70 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Nero and Brittanicus are said to have had talking nightingales‚ Agrippina a talking thrush and a nightingale‚ some Roman equestrians a talking crow‚ and the parrot was not uncommon among the Romans either. The latter was brought in from India and was a common pet to many Romans‚ including emperors. Sparrows‚ quails‚ ducks‚ doves‚ and pigeons were also kept as pets‚ while doves and pigeons were used to carry mail. The peacock was a favorite for its extravagant looks and was allowed to walk freely throughout its master’s property. Hens are mentioned as beloved to some (Emperor Honorius)‚ while cock fights were popular as well.   A reminder that when talking about the distant past‚ the extant sources can possibly lead us to wrong impressions on a global scale serves a surprising find from Pompeii: a poor man’s aviary. Obviously‚ it did not contain any exotic show-off specimens‚ but it shows that it was possible for a bird lover to possess a small aviary on the balcony of a second-floor apartment. The content of the aviary was probably small songbirds like nightingales and finches. On the other hand‚ in the same town‚ there was an enormous aviary which was large enough to keep a pet bird supply for the entire town.   Fish An aerial view of Tiberius’ Grotto in Sperlonga. Source: HeritageDaily.com   If we broaden the definition of the word pet‚ which we should‚ considering the somewhat different attitude of the Romans toward their pets (in comparison to us today)‚ we can also talk about fish kept in Roman households. In Pompeii alone‚ over 70 aquatic structures were found inside villas‚ many of which contained fish. Still‚ even though they served as status symbols similar to birds‚ fish could have ended up as their master’s supper. So‚ they were kept as decoration as well as food. There have been rumors that some have lamented the death of their fish and that some have adorned their pet fishes with earrings and necklaces (Pliny about the orator Hortensius and Antonia‚ grandmother of Caligula)‚ but this is rather an exception.   Another interesting topic concerning fish are the fish ponds built adjacent to some Roman villas. This was a step up on the high-class scale‚ even compared to the internal piscinae of wealthy Roman homes. Columella‚ a classical author from the 1st century CE‚ in his piece De re rustica‚ discusses the architecture of these constructions and offers advice on their position so that the sea tide can work its part in cleaning the water‚ suggests equipping the piscinae with contents familiar to fish kept there so that they would feel like home. Even more interesting is the fact that Tiberius’ villa in Sperlonga has a section known as Tiberius’ Grotto —- a saltwater piscina that still exists and contains fish and can be visited today. These places‚ aside from being glorious themselves‚ often featured works of art inside and outside the ponds‚ some of which can also be seen in Sperlonga‚ in the museum on site.   As for the species of fish kept in Roman ponds and pools‚ there were fish‚ and there were fish. Some were intended for display‚ others for food. Breams‚ flounders‚ brill‚ sole‚ and others were popular as food. Wrasses were edible as well as interesting because of their behavior‚ and mullets were also kept for fun as they tend to jump out of water. Different types of eels are heard to have been sold for vast amounts of money.   All this aquatic extravagance was at its highest during the imperial era‚ and afterward‚ it diminished‚ mostly due to emperors’ greed and confiscation of land from aristocratic landowners.   Miscellanea and Monkeys A relief shopkeeper showing pet monkeys and caged hares‚ Ostia Museum‚ second half of 2nd century CE. Source: ostiaantica.beniculturali.it   According to the Scriptores Historiae Augustae‚ Emperor Elagabalus possessed some bears‚ lions‚ and leopards which were exarmati: void of teeth and claws. They were also trained and used as commodities while ordered to lay on couches during feasts in order to inspire awe and fear among unsuspecting guests who had no clue the animals were “disarmed”.   Other emperors are also known to have kept tamed lions as pets. Lions were otherwise quite common among the Romans‚ used as theatre performers and gladiatorial fighters.   The emperor Valerian was famous for his bears‚ Mica Aurea and Innocentia‚ who were untamed‚ though‚ and actually used to slaughter humans.   Snakes are also attested as part of some households‚ and the most famous snake pet owner was the emperor Tiberius‚ who supposedly hand-fed his snake.   Some tortoise shells are found in the gardens of Pompeii‚ and monkey skeletons are found throughout the Mediterranean. Monkeys seem to have been popular pets among the Romans‚ macaques to be exact‚ although skeletons of other species also appear as archaeological evidence. It even seems that they were not an indicator of social status.   Humans Funerary stella dedicated to a Chloe delicia‚ among other family members. 1st century CE. Source: AncientRome.ru   This is an extremely uncomfortable notion‚ a topic most modern-day people would rather not even hear about. Still‚ considering the topic of pets in ancient Rome‚ and this being a known fact‚ it should be mentioned that humans‚ young children actually‚ were in fact treated as delicia — human pets. As many types of pets mentioned earlier‚ delicia were also a rich people’s commodity. Enslaved children‚ acquired from all parts of the Empire‚ were traded with this concrete role in mind because of their beauty‚ playfulness‚ and not yet-discouraged freedom of speech. Having grown out of their role‚ they were either sold as ordinary slaves or kept in the household and given other duties.   Pet children are mostly associated with emperors and in an unsettling context (although not as a rule)‚ but these pet children could also be loved and fostered and lamented upon death‚ as can well be read in Statius’s poems (Silvae)‚ and attested in other sources including funerary inscriptions. As with words in general‚ the term delicium is also multi-layered. Yes‚ it can suggest a relationship between the slave and his master where the slave is entirely objectified and seen as nothing more than a pet‚ but it also describes the role of a substitute child who was treated as a part of the family. This is a complicated subject and research about the status of children in ancient Rome is still ongoing‚ but the fact is that some of them were definitely seen and treated as pets.   Pets in Ancient Rome and Beyond Terracotta figure of a pet dog. 1st century CE. Unknown artist. Source: the British Museum   As we have seen‚ there were many animals‚ and more of them still that did not find their place in this article‚ which were kept as pets‚ and their owners’ sentiments toward them varied greatly. This really is not much different than it is today. Some still view their pets as ornaments‚ some as part of the family‚ and many see themselves as mommies and daddies to their babies‚ be it cats‚ dogs‚ or iguanas. This last bit also has a parallel in the ancient world:   “According to Ptolemy in book VII of the Commentaries‚ Massanassa‚ the king of Mauritania‚ offered a response that was appropriate for the people and others like them‚ when they tried to buy monkeys: “Hey — don’t the women in your country produce children?” (Athenaeus‚ The Learned Banqueters‚ 12‚ 518‚ trans. Olson‚ Loeb‚ London: 2010.)

She put her own spin on a classic song. Continue reading…

She didn't shade her ex‚ but she hardly threw him flowers. Continue reading…

It wasn't until her second album that the Missouri native scored her first chart-topper. Continue reading…

It helped to launch a massive career. Continue reading…

There's a rising star in the Democratic Party and you'd never guess who it is. Mostly‚ you could never guess it because it's not a person but the option of "Uncommitted" on ballots during Super Tuesday's contests. The option -- or its equivalent -- has seen a surprisingly strong performance...

A 62-year-old German man allegedly has received over 200 experimental COVID-19 shots and somehow has not reported any side effects. Reports claim the man deliberately received 217 COVID-19 shots in 29 months. “That’s an average of one jab every four days‚” CNN noted. A German man who deliberately got vaccinated for Covid-19 a whopping 217 times did not report any side effects from his many jabs‚ according to researchers studying possibly the "most vaccinated person in history".https://t.co/bg26GmuSds — AFP News Agency (@AFP) March 6‚ 2024 The ‘hypervaccinated’ became an experiment. CNN explains: In the process‚ he became a walking experiment for what happens to the immune system when it is vaccinated against the same pathogen repeatedly. A correspondence published Monday in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases outlined his case and concluded that while his “hypervaccination” did not result in any adverse health effects‚ it also did not significantly improve or worsen his immune response. The man‚ who is not named in the correspondence in compliance with German privacy rules‚ reported receiving 217 Covid shots between June 2021 and November 2023. Of those‚ 134 were confirmed by a prosecutor and through vaccination center documentation; the remaining 83 were self-reported‚ according to the study. “This is a really unusual case of someone receiving that many Covid vaccines‚ clearly not following any type of guidelines‚” said Dr. Emily Happy Miller‚ an assistant professor of medicine and of microbiology and immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who did not participate in the research. German patient vaccinated against Covid 217 times https://t.co/gqYwl5M3NL — BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) March 5‚ 2024 'Hypervaccinated' patient had 217 COVID-19 jabs in less than three years‚ scientists say https://t.co/EGhzksapWD — Sky News (@SkyNews) March 6‚ 2024 From The Guardian: The 62-year-old‚ from Magdeburg‚ Germany said that he had the large number of vaccines for “private reasons”‚ the researchers from University of Erlangen-Nuremberg said. The academics heard about the man from a newspaper report and asked if they could study his body’s response to the multiple jabs. “We then contacted him and invited him to undergo various tests in Erlangen”‚ Dr Kilian Schober said. “He was very interested in doing so.” The research team said it had seen official confirmation for 134 of the vaccinations‚ which included eight different vaccines. They looked at previous blood tests the man had given and also examined blood samples as he went on to receive further vaccines. “Here‚ we report on a 62-year-old male hypervaccinated individual from Magdeburg‚ Germany (HIM)‚ who deliberately and for private reasons received 217 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 within a period of 29 months. HIM’s hypervaccination occurred outside of a clinical study context and against national vaccination recommendations. Evidence for 130 vaccinations in a 9 month period was collected by the public prosecutor of Magdeburg‚ Germany‚ who opened an investigation of this case with the allegation of fraud‚ but criminal charges were not filed. 108 vaccinations are individually recorded and partly overlap with the total of 130 prosecutor-confirmed vaccinations‚” the researchers wrote. “To investigate the immunological consequences of hypervaccination in this unique situation‚ we submitted an analysis proposal to HIM via the public prosecutor. HIM then actively and voluntarily consented to provide medical information and donate blood and saliva. This procedure was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Erlangen‚ Germany. Throughout the entire hypervaccination schedule HIM did not report any vaccination-related side effects. From November 2019‚ to October 2023‚ 62 routine clinical chemistry parameters showed no abnormalities attributable to hypervaccination. Furthermore‚ HIM had no signs of a past SARS-CoV-2 infection‚ as indicated by repeatedly negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests‚ PCRs and nucleocapsid serology‚” they continued. Read more about this befuddling case at The Lancet Infectious Diseases.