Nero was the emperor before whom Paul was brought on his first imprisonment at Rome, and the apostle is supposed to have suffered martyrdom during this persecution. He is repeatedly alluded to in Scripture (Acts 25:11 ; Philippians 1:12,13 ; 4:22 ). He died A.D. 68.

Roman emperor (54-68), born Antium, December 15, 37; died Rome, June 9, 68. He was the son of Domitius and Agrippina. His beneficial rule under the direction of Burrus and Seneca ended in five years, when he gave way to his sensuality and moral perversity. He poisoned Brittanicus, assassinated his mother, divorced and executed his wife, Octavia, in order to marry Poppaea, burned Rome, caused a fierce persecution of Christians and the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and put to death Seneca, Petronius, and Pretus. Confronted with revolt in the provinces, outlawed and forsaken, he committed suicide.

Nero (nç'ro). L. Domitius Nero succeeded Claudius as emperor of Rome, 54 a.d., and killed himself to avoid a public execution, 68. In his reign that war commenced between the Jews and Romans which terminated later in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the overthrow of the Jewish polity. It was under Nero, too, that a fierce persecution of the Christians began, about 61 a.d., which lasted till his death. Paul suffered martyrdom in it at Rome. So great were this monarch's cruelties that his name has ever since served specially to distinguish a tyrant. He to frequently indicated as Caesar in the New Testament, Acts 25:18; Acts 25:10-12; Acts 25:21; Acts 26:32; Acts 28:19; Philippians 4:22, and as Augustus, Acts 25:21; Acts 25:25; but his name Nero does not occur. See Cæsar.

NERO is not mentioned by name in the NT, but his connexion with St. Paul’s trial ( Acts 25:1-27 ; Acts 26:1-32 ; Acts 27:1-44 ; Acts 28:1-31 , where ‘Cæsar’ is Nero), the mention of his household ( Philippians 4:22 ), and the general consensus of opinion that the number of the Beast 666 ( Revelation 13:18 ) is a cypher indicating Nero Kesar (the Gr. way of pronouncing the Emperor’s name), are sufficient reasons for including him here. Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, son of Gnaens Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 32 (died 40) a.d.) and Iulia Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus (the adopted son of the Emperor Tiberius), who became wife of the Emperor Claudius in 48 a.d., was born on 15 Dec. in the year 37 a.d. On adoption by his step-father on 25 Feb. 50 he received new names, by one of which, Nero, he has since been known. On the murder of Claudius his sole rule began in 54, and during it he was officially known as Imperator Nero Claudius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus. His death took place on 9 June, 68, in his thirty-first year. Nero inherited evil qualities from his father and mother, which for the first five years of his reign, when he was a mere youth, were kept in check by his two tutors, Burrus an experienced soldier, and Seneca the distinguished philosopher. His mother, a woman of very strong will, who had successfully schemed for his advancement, had no good influence on him, and, when of age to throw off all restraints, he plunged into follies and excesses which suggest that madness had unhinged his mind. His defects, however, seem to have done little more than scandalize and amuse Rome: the prosperity of the provinces, thanks to the excellence of the bureaucratic machine, continued. Space permits only a reference to some important events in his reign. The question of the Eastern frontier, which was a problem ever present to the Emperors, demanded settlement from Nero. The safety of this frontier could he secured only if Armenia were under the suzerainty of Rome. It was therefore the object of their perpetual rivals, the Parthians, to obtain this suzerainty. The Romans dared not annex Armenia, because it would inevitably become necessary to annex also the whole of the country on the west of the Tigris. At the opening of Nero’s reign, Tiridates, a Parthian, had established himself securely on the throne of Armenia, and the possession of Armenia by the Romans was thus seriously threatened. The ultimate intention of Rome was to offer Armenia to Tiridates as a gift, but as a necessary preliminary to this they made the most vigorous preparations for war. Cn. Domitius Corbulo, one of the ablest generals of the 1st cent., was appointed by Nero to conduct the campaign, and the governor of Syria and the other officials and client-princes in the neighbourhood of Armenia were instructed to co-operate with him. The condition of the Eastern troops caused a delay of two and a half years. After a terrible winter passed in tents in the uplying plain of Armenia, Corbulo was ready to strike in spring 58, and as the result of this first campaign Tiridates asked for terms. He was offered his kingdom as a gift from Rome, but refused to accept it, and in the second campaign (59) the Roman general marched upon Tiridates’ capital Artaxata, which surrendered, and proceeded thence by a long and difficult march to Tigranocerta, the second capital, in the extreme south, which in its turn surrendered. In the year 60, which was occupied in pacification, Tigranes, who was educated in Rome, was placed on the throne by Nero. The folly of this king and the cowardice and incompetence of the Roman general Pætus threatened to undo all that Corbulo had achieved; but Corbulo, as supreme commander-in-chief for the whole Eastern frontier, retrieved the loss in the year 63 and following on this successful campaign Tiridates received the crown as the gift of Rome. The long peace with Armenia which followed is to the credit of Corbulo’s consummate generalship and Nero’s skilful diplomacy. The Roman hold on Britain, which his predecessor Claudius had obtained, was further strengthened under Nero. It was in his reign that the justly aroused rebellion under Boudicca (better known by the incorrect form Boadicea) in East Anglia was crushed, after terrible massacres by the Britons, by the governor Suetonius Paulinus (60). There was henceforth, for a considerable time, peace in Britain. The Germany and Danube frontiers also engaged attention in Nero’s time. In the city Nero exercised a wise care for the corn and water supplies. He also increased the power of the Senate, and may be said to have constituted an Imperial Cabinet. He was fond of the arts, especially music and poetry, but he never attained more than a respectable standard in either. On 19 July, 64, fire broke out in Rome, and raged for nine days in all, leaving great parts of the city in ashes. On the evidence Nero must be acquitted of all connexion with the fire, which was due to chance. The populace, however, suspected the Emperor, and were anxious to bring retribution on the originators of the fire. Nero selected the Christians as scapegoats, and he may have believed them guilty, as some of them were understood to have confessed their guilt. They were subjected to every imaginable variety of cruel death. These punishments did not remove suspicion from Nero, and, as the populace soon became sated, other charges had to be brought against them. Of these charges, hostility to civilized society was the chief. At a later stage in history we find evidence to justify the conclusion that the name ‘Christian’ was held to be a sufficient charge in Itself. A conspiracy against the Emperor’s life, in which some of the chief men in the State were implicated, failed of its purpose through treachery in 65; the effect on the Emperor’s mind issued in a reign of terror, and a number of the noblest persons, particularly Stoics, were put to death. The later days of Nero saw the rise of the Jewish insurrection against the Roman power, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the massacre of countless Jews in a.d. 70. Two years before that, however, the revolt of Gaul under Vindex had been the prelude to Nero’s death. His life of ease and luxury had weakened a nature never inured to hardship, and when the hour of danger came he sought a refuge in suicide. Not long after his death there arose a curious rumour in the East, that he had come to life again, or had not really died. The East had seen nothing but his best side, and this rumour, born of a desire to see him emperor again, seriously endangered the peace of the Empire, as more than one person came forward claiming to be Nero. Of the trial or trials of St. Paul we know nothing certain. It is highly probable that his appeal was heard either before a committee of the Emperor’s privy council, or before the Emperor’s deputy, the prefect of the city. A. Souter.

(nee' roh) Personal name meaning, “brave.” Roman emperor A.D. 54-68. Nero became emperor in A.D. 57 at the age of thirteen. He succeeded his stepfather, Claudius, who was probably murdered at the behest of Agrippina, Nero's mother. For the first years of his reign, Nero was content to be dominated by his mother and his two mentors, Burrus and Seneca. The latter was a leading Stoic philosopher who was able, for a time, to moderate Nero's more excessive tendencies. As he grew older, Nero threw off these moderating influences and took control. To remove opposition, he probably was involved in the death of his half brother, Britannicus, and he had his mother murdered. Nero was a complex personality. He could be extremely cruel, and his life was marked with debauchery and excess. Yet he was also a poet, an actor, a musician, and an athlete. He attempted to turn the crowds of Rome away from the brutal gladitorial contests to an appreciation of the Greek-style Olympic games and other forms of cultural competition. During Nero's rule the Great Fire broke out in Rome (A.D. 64). Much of the city was destroyed including Nero's palace. The story, probably true in part, goes that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Nero took measures to provide relief for those affected by the fire. Still he could not dispell the rumor that he had the fire set. People knew that he planned to build a much larger palace for himself and they reasoned that he used the fire to clear off the land. Nero felt the need to divert suspicion to another group. He selected the Christians as his scapegoats. He claimed that they had set the fire. A systematic persecution of the Christians followed. Because of his life-style and the persecution, many Christians viewed him as the antichrist. Nero neglected the army. This proved to be his downfall. He lost the loyalty of large segments of the army. Finally, several frontier armies revolted. Nero's support at home melted away. Realizing that the end was inevitable and near, he committed suicide by stabbing himself in A.D. 68. See Rome. Gary Poulton

The Emperor Nero is not named in Scripture; but he is indicated by his title of emperor, and by his surname Caesar. To him St. Paul appealed after his imprisonment by Felix, and his examination by Festus, who was swayed by the Jews. St. Paul was therefore carried to Rome, where he arrived A.D. 61. Here he continued two years, preaching the Gospel with freedom, till he became famous even in the emperor's court, in which were many Christians; for he salutes the Philippians in the name of the brethren who were of the household of Caesar, that is, of Nero's court, Php_1:12-13 ; Php_4:22 . We have no particular information how he cleared himself from the accusations of the Jews, whether by answering before Nero, or whether his enemies dropped their prosecutions, which seems probable, Acts 28:21 . However, it appears that he was liberated in the year 63. Nero is reckoned the first persecutor of the Christian church: his persecution was A.D. 64. Nero, the most cruel and savage of all men, and also the most wicked and depraved, began his persecution against the Christian church, A.D. 64, on pretence of the burning of Rome, of which some have thought himself to be the author. He endeavoured to throw all the odium on the Christians: those were seized first that were known publicly as such, and by their means many others were discovered. They were condemned to death, and were even insulted in their sufferings. Some were sewed up in skins of beasts, and then exposed to dogs to be torn in pieces; some were nailed to crosses; others perished by fire. The latter were sewed up in pitched coverings, which, being set on fire, served as torches to the people, and were lighted up in the night. Nero gave leave to use his own gardens, as the scene of all these cruelties. From this time edicts were published against the Christians, and many martyrs suffered, especially in Italy. St. Peter and St. Paul are thought to have suffered martyrdom, consequent on this persecution, A.D. 65. The revolt of the Jews from the Romans happened about A.D. 65 and 66, in the twelfth and thirteenth of Nero. The city of Jerusalem making an insurrection, A.D. 66, Florus there slew three thousand six hundred persons, and thus began the war. A little while afterward, those of Jerusalem killed the Roman garrison. Cestius on this came to Jerusalem to suppress the sedition; but he was forced to retire, after having besieged it about six weeks, and was routed in his retreat, A.D. 66. About the end of the same year, Nero gave Vespasian the command of his troops against the Jews. This general carried on the war in Galilee and Judea during A.D. 67 and 68, the thirteenth and fourteenth of Nero. But Nero killing himself in the fourteenth year of his reign, Jerusalem was not besieged till after his death, A.D. 70, the first and second of Vespasian.

Nero (1), Claudius Caesar, emperor (Oct. 13, 54, to June 9, 68). For our purpose the interest of Nero's life centres in his persecution of the Christians. For his general history see Merivale, cc. lii.–lv. During his early reign Christianity was unmolested and seems to have spread rapidly at Rome. No doubt it received a great impetus from the preaching of St. Paul during the two years after his arrival, probably early in 61. But before long a terrible storm was to burst on the infant church. On the night of July 16, 64, a fire broke out in the valley between the Palatine and the Aventine. That part of the city was crowded with humble dwellings and shops full of inflammable contents. The lower parts of the city became a sea of flame. For six days the fire raged till it reached the foot of the Esquiline, where it was stopped by pulling down a number of houses. Soon after a second fire broke out in the gardens of Tigellinus near the Pincian, and raged for three days in the N. parts of the city. Though the loss of life was less in the second fire, the destruction of temples and public buildings was more serious. By the two fires three of the 14 regions were utterly destroyed, four escaped entirely, in the remaining seven but few houses were left standing. Nero was at Antium when the fire broke out, and did not return to Rome till it had almost reached the vast edifice he had constructed to connect his palace on the Palatine with the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline. The horrible suspicion that Nero himself was the author of the fire gained strength. This is asserted as a positive fact by Suetonius (c. 38), Dion (lxii. 16), and Pliny the Elder (xvii. 1), the last being a contemporary, but Tacitus alludes to it only as a prevalent rumour. Whether well founded or not, and whether, supposing it true, the emperor's motive was to clear away the crooked, narrow streets of the old town in order to rebuild it on a new and regular plan, or whether it was a freak of madness, need not be discussed here. At any rate Nero found it necessary to divert from himself the rage of the people and put the blame upon the Christians. The only author living near the time of the persecution who gives an account of it is Tacitus. After describing the origin of Christianity he proceeds: "First were arrested those who confessed, then on their information a vast multitude was convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as for their hatred of the human race. Their deaths were made more cruel by the mockery that accompanied them. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs; others perished on the cross or in the flames; and others again were burnt after sunset as torches to light up the darkness. Nero himself granted his gardens (on the Vatican) for the show, and gave an exhibition in the circus, and, dressed as a charioteer, mixed with the people or drove his chariot himself. Thus, guilty and deserving the severest punishment as they were, yet they were pitied, as they seemed to be put to death, not for the benefit of the state but to gratify the cruelty of an individual" (Ann. xv. 44). This narrative has been the subject of very various interpretations. Lightfoot ( Phil. 24–27) considers that the Christians were at this time sufficiently numerous and conspicuous to attract the fury of the populace. The ambiguity of Tacitus leaves it doubtful whether those first arrested " confessed Christianity" or "confessed they were guilty of the burning." Schiller ( Geschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs unter Nero , 435) argues that "fateri" in Tacitus is always used of the confession of a crime. According to his view, as many of the shops near the circus where the fire originated were occupied by Jews, suspicion would fall upon them, which would be strengthened by the fact that the Transtiberine, the Ghetto of that time, was one of the few quarters that had escaped the fire. At that time Jews and Christians lived in the same part of the town and in the same manner. Weiszäcker (Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie , xxi. 269, etc.) considers, with much probability, that Nero and his advisers having selected the Christians as the victims of the popular indignation, those first seized were conspicuous members and were charged as incendiaries, and from them the names of others were ascertained and these treated in the same way. Thus a vast number were arrested, so many that all could not have been guilty of arson. Why Nero selected the Christians must remain uncertain. The Jews, who at first sight would seem more likely scapegoats, as being more conspicuous and probably more unpopular, were strong enough to make Nero hesitate to attack them. A Jewish persecution in Rome might excite a dangerous revolt in Judea. The Christians, however, were conspicuous and numerous enough to furnish a plentiful supply of victims, but too few and weak to be formidable. From the allusions of St. Clement (Ep. to Cor. c. 6), a little more information can be obtained. Like Tacitus, he speaks of the vast multitude, and mentions that women underwent terrible and unholy tortures. The persecution was probably confined to Rome. There is little evidence of it extending to the rest of the empire. The Acts of the saints mentioned by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ii. 73–89) are all more or less fabulous, and even if authentic there seems little or no ground for placing them in the reign of Nero. The accounts in Acts of the journeys of St. Paul shew how easily an outbreak of popular fury might be excited by Jews or heathens, who, either on religious or private grounds, were hostile to the new doctrine, and how easily in such an outbreak a conspicuous Christian might be murdered without any state edict against Christianity, or without the public authorities interfering at all, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when Nero set the example of persecution, many provincial magistrates would take a harsher view than previously of the case of any Christian brought before them. The question of the connexion between Nero and Antichrist was brought into prominence by M. Renan. The significance of the Neronian persecution lies in the fact that it was the first. Hitherto the attitude of state officials to Christianity had on the whole been favourable; at worst they treated it with contemptuous indifference. All this was now suddenly changed. The head of the state had made a ferocious attack on the infant church. Henceforth the two powers were in more or less violent antagonism till the struggle of 250 years was closed by the conversion of Constantine. Whatever the date of the Apocalypse, it can hardly be doubted that the Neronian persecution with .all its horrors was vividly present to the mind of the author. To have perished obscurely by his own hand seemed both to pagans and Christians too commonplace an end for a monster who for 14 years had filled such a place in the eyes and the minds of men. Few had witnessed his death, so that the notion easily arose that he was still alive, had taken refuge with the Parthians, and would reappear. Tacitus mentions (Hist. i. 2; ii. 8, 9) the appearance of two false Neros, and Suetonius (c. 56) alludes to another. In the days of his prosperity diviners had predicted his fall and that he would gain a new dominion in the East and Jerusalem and at last regain the empire ( ib. c. 40). According to the theory of M. Reuss (Hist. de la théol. chrétienne , i. 429–452), adopted by Renan, the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Galba, i.e. at the end of 68 or beginning of 69, when men's minds were agitated, especially in Asia Minor, by the appearance of a false Nero in the island of Cythnus (Tac. Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss interprets the first six heads of the first beast as the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was then reigning. As he was 73 years old his reign must soon terminate; a seventh was to follow and reign for a short time, after which one of the emperors supposed to be dead was to reappear as Antichrist. The first four emperors had not been hostile to the Christians, and none of them, except Caius, had died a violent death. Nero therefore alone answers the description. Finally M. Reuss interprets the number of the beast as the numerical value of the letters of the words Νέρων Καῖσαρ when written in Hebrew, and explains the existence of the ancient variant reading 616 by supposing it due to a Latin reader who had found the solution, but pronounced the name Nero and not Neron. Whether this theory be well founded or not, the opinion that Nero would return as Antichrist certainly continued for centuries. Commodianus, who probably wrote c. 250, alludes to it (xli. in Migne, Patr. Lat. v. 231), and even in the 5th cent. St. Augustine ( de Civ. Dei , xx. 19, in ib. xli. 686) mentions that some then believed he would rise again and reappear as Antichrist, and that others thought he had never died, but would appear at the appointed time and recover his kingdom. Another view was that Nero would be the precursor of Antichrist (Lact. Mortes 2, Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. 14 in Patr. Lat. vii. 197; xx. 211.) ^[1]

The future Emperor Nero received at birth, 15th December, 37, the names Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. His father was Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul, a.d. 32), on the mother’s side grandnephew of the Emperor Augustus, and his mother was Iulia Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus (died a.d. 59) and great-granddaughter of Augustus. Both were persons of ungovernable temper and immoral character, and from the first their son had little chance of leading a noble life. Gnaeus died in the year 40 when his son was barely three years old, and Agrippina, possessed by limitless ambition, schemed soon after for a second marriage, with no less a person than the reigning Claudius himself (Emperor a.d. 41-54; see under Claudius), in spite of the fact that he was her uncle. Agrippina became the fourth wife of Claudius in a.d. 49, such marriages having been legalized by the Senate (Tac. Ann. xii. 5-6). She procured the recall of the philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca and made him instructor of her son. At the same time he was betrothed to Claudius’ daughter Octavia. In the year 50 Claudius adopted Domitius, who thus became Tiberius Claudius Drusus Germanicus Caesar (according to another view, Lucius Claudius Nero). Next year the young man assumed the dress of manhood and was given the consulship. At the same time Afranius Burrus, his military instructor, was made prefect of the praetorian guards. In a.d. 53 the marriage with Octavia took place. Claudius’ own son Britannicus (born 12th Feb. 41), who had been steadily pushed further and further into the background, happened to have to leave Rome through illness in the year 54. This gave Agrippina her opportunity, and with the help of two professional poisoners Claudius was put to death on 13th October. Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or, as he is later called, Imperator Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, was saluted Imperator by the soldiers, and their acclamation was ratified by the Senate. Among his private relationships during his reign may be mentioned his passion for his Greek mistress Acte, his marriage in a.d. 62 with Poppaea Sabina, wife of M. Saluius Otho (one of his successors in the Empire), and the banishment and murder of his first wife Octavia at her instance. In a.d. 63 a daughter was born to Nero and Poppaea, but the child died shortly afterwards. His marriage with the male Pythagoras took place in a.d. 64, and in 65 the death of Poppaea. In 55 Nero had Britannicus poisoned and in 59 his mother was put to death by his order. She had committed every sin for his advancement, but had become intolerable. Nero died by his own hand or that of a slave on 9th June, 68, leaving no descendant behind him. With him the Caesarian race, weakened by intermarriage, debauchery, and madness, came to an end. A brief summary of the chief events of Nero’s reign may now be given. It has become customary to repeat that his first five years were a model period of government. There was some difficulty in holding this view, considering what the historians have to tell us. But J. G. C. Anderson and F. Haverfield have recently pointed out (see under Literature) that this opinion, put into the mouth of the Emperor Trajan by the late compiler Aurelius Victor (Liber de Caesaribus, ch. 5), does not refer to the first five years, does not perhaps refer to any specific five years, but if it does, refers rather to the last five years, and in any case touches only Nero’s building operations. His reign is best divided into two periods-the first from 54 to 62, when the State was under the joint administration of Seneca and Burrus, and the second from 62 to 68, when it was under the Emperor’s sole rule. Neither period was undistinguished for good, and indeed the machinery of government was so perfected by Augustus that the mad behaviour of an Emperor scandalized only the inhabitants of Rome, and had no effect on the provinces, in which the real life of the Roman Empire lay. The administration of Seneca and Burrus led to the strengthening of the power of the Senate. It also led to the overthrow of Agrippina’s influence, which had been most powerful at the first. Nero’s policy seems at first to have been one of laissez faire. He was very young and fond of pleasure, and gratified his tastes to the full. The historians are occupied with details of his doings, and tell us little about Italian or Roman affairs. In the year 58 the Emperor proposed to establish ‘free trade.’ The object of this proposal was to relieve the people and to get rid of a method of taxation attended with much injustice. The producers and capitalists, on whom extra burdens would thus have been imposed, were able to strangle the scheme at birth. The Imperial purse, depleted through extravagance, was replenished by confiscation. About 61 or 62 began the depreciation of the gold and silver coinage, from which Rome never completely recovered. Nero also deprived the Senate of the right to issue copper coinage. This was a serious blow, as the exchange value of the copper always exceeded the value of the metal, and the Senate could thus coin credit-money to any amount. On 19th July, a.d. 64, the great fire in Rome broke out; it lasted for a week, and destroyed an immense area of property. The occasion was used to build broader streets and finer buildings. The reign of Nero is conspicuous for the lives of prominent Stoics, particularly Paetus Thrasea, men of courage and virtue among the noblest the world has ever seen. They stood for the old republican regime, and were particularly in evidence in the Senate. These, as well as rich men in no way connected with them, were victims of a policy of wholesale murder associated with the last six years or so of Nero’s reign. It was not surprising that, while the generality of the Senate were paralyzed with terror, a powerful conspiracy should have arisen against the maniac on the throne. The leader chosen was C. Calpurnius Piso, and the plot had been brewing since 62. In 65 all the arrangements were complete, but at the eleventh hour the Emperor was informed, and Piso, Seneca the philosopher, Lucan, the author of the rhetorical epic De Bello Civili (often, but wrongly, called Pharsalia), and others, met their death. Nero’s own fall was the result of the revolt of C. Iulius Vindex, governor of Gallia Lugudunensis, with whom Galba, the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, allied himself. Vindex was defeated by Verginius Rufus, governor of Southern Germany, but Galba became Emperor. External affairs during Nero’s reign bulk more largely than internal. Two provinces were added to the Roman Empire-Pontus Polemoniacus in Northern Asia Minor, by the gift of Polemo, and the Alpes Cottiae, on the death of Cottius (Suet. Nero, 18). But it was in the extreme east on the one hand, and the extreme west on the other, that the most important events took place-in Armenia and in Britain. Britain had been made a province in 43, but pacification was impossible without hard and exhausting warfare. Real progress was made under the governorship of Suetonius Paulinus, who in 61 captured Mona (Anglesey). There followed a great rising of the Iceni (under Boudicca) and the Trinouantes. Camalodunum (Colchester), the Roman colonia, was burnt, and Londinium and Verulamium (St. Albans) were captured by the insurgents. A great slaughter of the Romans and their allies was followed by the victory of Paulinus and the suicide of Boudicca. The Eastern campaigns of Nero’s reign are imperishably connected with Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, one of the greatest generals of the Roman Empire. There had been for some time a struggle between the Romans and the Parthians, their hereditary enemies, for the possession of Armenia. Rival pretenders to the throne of that country were supported, one by Rome, the other by Parthia. When Nero came to the throne, a Parthian prince, Tiridates, was ruling over Armenia. Corbulo’s troops at first were insufficient and many of them were unfit for service. Much time was lost in training them and in parleying with Tiridates. Artaxata was captured in 58. The surrender of Tigranocerta resulted in the defeat of Tiridates and the establishment of a new king in 60, but circumstances led to an arrangement with Parthia by which Tiridates was permitted to return in the next year. This arrangement was not ratified by the home government, and Armenia had to be conquered again. The new governor of Cappadocia, Lucius Caesennius Paetus, proved incompetent, and his army had to capitulate. Corbulo declined to interfere. Paetus was recalled, and Corbulo undertook the government of Cappadocia. The result was that Tiridates had to go to Rome and receive his crown from Nero as a suppliant (a.d. 66). Corbulo’s success throughout seems to have been due in part to his skilful subordinate, Vettius Bolanus (Statius, Siluae, v. ii. 31-47), but it did not prevent his suicide by Nero’s command in Greece (a.d. 67). The severe discipline and hardship of these Oriental campaigns provide a contrast to the Imperial excesses at Rome. The spread of Christianity to Western Europe presents another. The latter part of St. Paul’s missionary activity coincides with Nero’s reign. It was to Nero’s tribunal that St. Paul appealed (Acts 25:11); it was also among the slaves and freedmen of his household that he found many of his fellow-Christians in Rome (Philippians 4:22; cf. Romans 16). It was on a capital charge that St. Paul had been arraigned, and in such cases a Roman citizen could appeal from the court of a procurator to the Emperor himself. There are inconsistencies in the Acts narrative (cf. Mommsen’s article mentioned below, pp. 92, 93 = p. 443) of the preliminaries, but we need have no doubt that St. Paul did as a matter of fact appear before the Emperor in Rome. Whether acquittal or condemnation was the result, and whether in the former case St. Paul had to stand a second trial, which resulted in condemnation, are questions which lie outside the scope of the present article. Whatever be the truth in this matter, there is a consensus of opinion that Nero was the first Emperor to persecute the Christians. The Church always believed this (cf. Ambrosiaster, writing in Rome about 375, in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 : ‘mysterium iniquitatis a Nerone cceptum est, qui zelo idolorum et apostolos interfecit,’ etc.), and, according to a very early interpretation of the number of the Best in the Apocalypse (13:18), Neron Ḳesar is there referred to (confirmed by a Western variant, 616, which means the Latin form Nero, as against the Greek form Neron, 666-616 being = 50, represented in Greek by v ^[1]). The narrative of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) connects the evil treatment of the Christians with the great fire of the year 64. The Emperor’s behaviour on that occasion was in many ways to be commended, but the story that he sat on the roof of his palace playing the harp during the conflagration (add Augustine, Sermons, ccxcvi. 7, to the authorities usually quoted) makes the narrative of the horrible death of the Christians, condemned for incendiarism, quite credible. The first Christians met their death in Rome as scapegoats, not because it was illegal to be a Christian. That stage is later; how much later is debated. Some summing up of Nero’s character may be attempted, though it seems hardly fair to judge a man who was only thirty-one at his death, and was undoubtedly afflicted with madness. There is perhaps less good that can be said of him than of any other Roman Emperor. That he was prodigal and licentious to an astounding degree cannot be denied. All the savings of the Emperor Claudius were dispersed by his wastefulness, as were those of Tiberius by his successor Gains (Caligula). It may also be truly said that he had no conception of the Imperial dignity. He had much of the mountebank about him, and his musical and other performances on the public stage made him ridiculous. He was childish enough to enter into poetic rivalry with his subject Lucan. Though lazy by contrast with his class in governmental duty, he might have attained some eminence in the arts, and in these only, under other circumstances. Literature.-The chief ancient authorities are Tacitus, Ab Excessu Diui Augusti, bks. xiii.-xvi.; Suetonius, Life of Nero. The best modern book is B. W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero, London, 1903 (particularly good on Corbulo’s campaigns); J. B. Bury, A History of the Roman Empire, do., 1893, chs. xvi., xvii., xviii. On the quinquennium Neronis, see the epoch-making article ‘Trajan on the Quinquennium Neronis,’ by J. G. C. Anderson (with note by F. Haverfield), in JRS ^[2] i. ^[3] 173-179. On the Neronian household, see J. B. Lightfoot’s excursus in the Epistle to the Philippians 4, London, 1878; on St. Paul’s legal position under Nero, see Mommsen’s article ‘Die Rechtsverhältnisse des Apostels Paulus,’ in ZNTW ^[4] ii. ^[5] 81-96=Gesammelte Schriften, iii. ^[6] 431-446; on Nero as persecutor of Christians, cf. C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung, Leipzig, 1888; W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire3, London, 1894, ch. xi.; E. G. Hardy, Studies in Roman History, do., 1906, ch. iv.; on Nero and Lucan, W. B. Anderson, in Queen’s Quarterly, xiv. ^[7] 196-214. A. Souter.