?92 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1794. 



of the suburbs, for some reason or 

 other, perhaps by being the site of 

 hazardous manufactures, particular- 

 ly exposed and obnoxious to these 

 calamities. 



It is true that Tacitus, in another 

 place, says, Avith a seeming contra- 

 diction, Init'tum in ea parte Circi 

 Oftum, qua Palatlno Calioque Mon- 

 iibus contigua est; and Fleury, in 

 his Ecclesiastical History, founding 

 the assertion on this passage, says it 

 broke out in some shops about the 

 Circus, without taking notice of the 

 other alleged site of its commcnce- 

 iment. 



The commentators on Tacitus 

 have endeavoured to reconcile the 

 difference, and insist that it broke 

 out in two places, the Circus and 

 the ^miliana. Now, as to the 

 Circus, Tacitus himself accounts for 

 its rise and progress there, Ubi per 

 tabernas, qu'ibus id Merdmonium iue- 

 rat quo Jlamnia alitur cceptus ignis. 

 The fire began in certain shops 

 filled with inflammable materials, 

 and naturally calculated to originate 

 and diffuse the fl.unes. Where they 

 could so easily be accounted for, 

 who would have seen, reflected by 

 their light, the deadly visage of the 

 tyrant, but those whose horrors of 

 his crimes and terror of his wicked- 

 ness raised on every occasion the 

 imperial phantom before their 

 alarmed imaginations. Let us not 

 fear that by deducting this little 

 burthen of guilt we shall leave too 

 small a portion of infamy to satiate 

 resentment and deter imitation. 

 The bloody roll of Nero's crimes 

 will scarcely appear diminished by 

 expunging this inferior title to ab- 

 horrence. 



It is an inferior circumstance, yet 

 not entirely unworthy of note, that 

 the rumours whi<;h had reached the 



ears of the two historiaus, astp Ne< 

 ro's conduct, essentially varied. To 

 the one he had been represented as 

 going openly and publicly to the 

 summit of Mscenas's tower to sing 

 the fate of Troy, while to the other 

 he was depicted as retiring into his 

 private apartments fin domesticam 

 scenam), there secretly to enjoy the 

 devastation of his groaning countrj'. 

 Uncertainty and contradiction are 

 the sisters of unfounded report. 



From the account given us of this 

 event by Tacitus, we find that the 

 emperor's object, in at length leav-, 

 ing Antium to go to Rome, was to 

 save his palace. Now in this he 

 did not succeed. The palace was 

 destroyed, and yet he is afterwards 

 accused of constructing a new pa- 

 lace of wonderful magnificence, out 

 of the ruins of his country (Usus est 

 palria ruinis, says Tacitus), not 

 without insinuation that such might 

 have been partly the object of the 

 antecedent devastation. There is 

 nothing in his previous conduct to 

 support the suspicion, for he was 

 anxious to save his former residence, 

 and to prevent the necessity of 

 erecting a new one. . 



Tlie anxiety of Nero to avoid the 

 charge is utterly incompatible with 

 the narration of Suetonius. Iticendit 

 v.rhcm iampalam^ says that historian, 

 Ut plcrique Cotifularcs, Citbicularios 

 ejus, cum stupa tadaqiie, in prd:diis 

 suis dtpnbensos non attigerinl. Is it 

 credible that he, who so much 

 dreaded the imputation, should have 

 committed the fact without disguise. 

 That he used every exertion to avert 

 the charge appears from Tacitus — 

 by anxious and active care to expe- 

 dite the rebuilding of the city — by 

 princely largesses to the sufferers — 

 -by supplications and atoning sacri- 

 fices to the gods, he laboured to 



extricate 



