 The history of Nero 's reign is problematic in that no historical sources survived that were contemporary with Nero . These first histories at one time did exist and were described as biased and fantastical , either overly critical or praising of Nero . The original sources were also said to contradict on a number of events . Nonetheless , these lost primary sources were the basis of surviving secondary and tertiary histories on Nero written by the next generations of historians . A few of the contemporary historians are known by name . Fabius Rusticus , Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder all wrote condemning histories on Nero that are now lost . There were also pro @-@ Nero histories , but it is unknown who wrote them or for what deeds Nero was praised . 
 The history of Nero <a href='null_genetive' title='1'><mark>'s</mark></a>reign is problematic in that no historical sources survived that <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>were</mark></a> contemporary with Nero . These first histories at one time did exist and <a href='uninflect' title='3'><mark>were</mark></a> described as biased and fantastical , either overly critical or praising of Nero . The original sources <a href='uninflect' title='4'><mark>were</mark></a> also said to contradict on a number of events . Nonetheless , these lost primary sources <a href='uninflect' title='5'><mark>were</mark></a> the basis of surviving secondary and tertiary histories on Nero written by the next generations of historians . A few of the contemporary historians are known by name . Fabius Rusticus , Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder all wrote condemning histories on Nero <a href='null_relcl' title='6'><mark>that</mark></a>are now lost . <a href='dey_it' title='7'><mark>There</mark></a> <a href='uninflect' title='8'><mark>were</mark></a> also pro @-@ Nero histories , but it is unknown who wrote them or for what deeds Nero was praised . 
Da history of Nero  reign is problematic in that no historical sources survived that was contemporary wit Nero . These first histories at one time did exist and was described as biased and fantastical , either overly critical or praising of Nero . Tdaoriginal sources was also said to contradict on a number of events . Nonetheless , dese lost primary sources was the basis of surviving secondary and tertiary histories on Nero written by the next generations of historians . A few of thdaontemporary historians are known by name . Fabius Rusticus , Cluvius Rufus and Pliny the Elder all wrote condemning histories on Nero r now lost . It was also pro @-@ Nero histories , but it is unknown who wrote em or fa wht deeds Nero was praised .