Review: Nero: Man Behind the Myth

by Richard Holland

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or Emperor Nero, born 37 AD living to AD 68 is perhaps the most notorious Roman Emperor. In this book Richard Holland aims to assess the true character of this fearsome figure.

The lasting impression of the brutal, paranoid, sadistic, dictator who murdered his friends and family, persecuted Christians is one of fear and awe. As ever with history though, there are historians who attempt to play devil’s advocate and posit the question: is the prevailing picture accurate? Was he really as bad as he has been portrayed through film, books and ancient sources? Richard Holland wrote this book in the year 2000, and aims to revise the view of Emperor Nero. But how good of a job did he do?

Readability

Holland’s biography is engaging to read, his easy writing style is not too bogged down in detail but provides the key information without becoming prolix. It’s a compelling and rational approach. I would consider his style very easy to dip into and the language is rarely difficult for the general reader.

In speaking of the Roman Stoic Seneca’s training of Nero, equipping him for the rigours of political life and ability to display gravitas, Holland writes:

‘he years of training in rhetoric had paid off for the teenage Emperor. He was a fluent performer, slim and erect, boyishly handsome and speaking words of wisdom with the gravitas of a professional actor and the appealing ardour of youth. The senators, whatever their reservations about his age and qualifications, seem in most cases to have been genuinely impressed, if not entirely won over, by his manner and his statements of promised future policy, which Seneca had carefully tailored to fit their opinions and prejudices.' pp.66

Seneca, the wealthy and influential Stoic philosopher, writer, dramatist and statesman, aimed to temper Nero but had decreasing influence on the Emperor as he aged. It might be that Seneca equipped Nero effectively, but later in age as he begins to distance himself from Seneca (particularly right before Nero’s own suicide and execution of Seneca) and there was always an element of tension between Seneca’s Stoic beliefs and the child Emperor. As Holland notes, if anything, the rumours that Nero followed the rival ancient Greek philosophy of Epicureanism was more likely.

Nero the man

Richard Holland discusses the evidence we have about Nero in a mixed fashion. On some topics I felt his arguments were more compelling and others weaker. Nero suffered tragedy in his life, had an ignominious end - the descriptions of which can seem quite dubious - but he does seem to have had a vindictive streak throughout his life which is hard to ignore, even by Roman standards.

The difficulty in evaluating Nero can be illustrated with the Great Fire of Rome. According to Suetonius, Nero caused the Great Fire to recreate the burning of Troy, whilst he sang in stage costume, which frankly seems like nonsense. Cassius Dio concurs with this view. Tacitus blames the fire as a vehicle to persecute the Christians, and vividly describes them being hurled onto it. Both seem to focus on his cruelty, but we’ll probably never know for sure whether Nero started the fire or whether these were his motives. Notably, all of these writers were ancient but were not contemporaries of Nero, so we are still getting second-hand information, even if it were closer to the real events.

Nero is a difficult figure to assess in some ways, as a lot of the early evidence is negative, and we have almost no contemporary evidence. For sure his actions, especially towards the end of his reign, do seem to suggest that he leaned more towards the cruel brutal side. A key feature of this book – and, to be fair, a huge number of books generally – is that the author already has the idea of what view they want to carry across, and then fit everything to that idea. I do feel like this book is occasionally guilty of this, especially as we shall see below in comparisons to great figures of history.

Holland is balanced in some ways. In detailing one speech, he notes how Nero’s performance leads to laughter:

‘The panegyric was duly delivered by Nero, to Seneca’s script. But unfortunately the great rhetorician had failed, on this occasion, to judge the mood of the people. The packed crowd in the Forum listened with due respect to the catalogue of Claudius’ triumphs and literary achievements, but when Nero went on to praise the absent-minded and eccentric old Emperor’s foresight and wisdom, it proved too much for their sense of humour. Laughter broke out, although Nero himself would appear to have kept a straight face.’

Holland doesn’t completely restrict himself to events where Nero is looked on favourably, albeit this could reflect more on Seneca as the writer of the speech than Nero himself. Towards the end of his reign, Nero becomes less restricted. He began to trust his allies less and punished his enemies where possible. There is also evidence of Nero’s brutality, such as when he executes his rivals, Plautus and Sulla. I don’t believe that Holland gives some of these events enough credit: if Nero wasn’t so bad, questions such as punishing enemies, executing Seneca and his persecution of Christians need to be given adequate attention. For example, other emperors were to punish Christians too, but at the same time Tacitus’s Romanised view was that being Christian was a cultish, abhorrent idea, so were ancient writers right about Nero and the Great Fire? Was Nero more/less brutal than Caligula? He answers these questions to varying degrees of satisfaction, and arguably not enough time such as on the examples I’ve mentioned here.

One of the great figures?

The attempt to compare Nero to figures of awe seem misguided:

'Seneca was well aware of the precedent set by Aristotle in tutoring the future Alexander the Great. Now he was to have charge of the education of a prince for whom an even greater inheritance and possible destiny beckoned.' (pp.51)

Although the reflection on Aristotle tutoring Alexander is factually correct, it’s also a stretch to say this is Seneca’s personal idea. It was common practice for Roman Emperors to be surrounded by those who would give them the best possible education, the crème de la crème. This would include rhetoric, philosophy, hunting, authority, writing and the key works of the time.

Even more bizarre is the attempt to compare Nero with Jesus Christ. For sure, it could be argued that the negative perception of Nero we have was a distortion by writers such as Suetonius or Dio. But to attempt to compare him to a religious figure of the magnitude of Christ feels ludicrous, out of place and even a little desperate. Perhaps Holland was attempting to show that Nero had more similarities with the religion he purportedly persecuted and made a scapegoat for the Great Fire of Rome. It did not convince me in the slightest though and was the strangest section of the book.

Historiography

Some of the books on Nero have been around a while. There’s Miriam Griffin’s Nero – the end of a dynasty or Blackwell’s companion to the Neronian age can be quite pricey or difficult to find. John Drinkwater’s Nero: Emperor and Court is a broad look and at a more accessible price. Emily Wilson’s Seneca, A Life, speaks of much of the political intrigue and power balances in Nero’s reign, with Seneca being a key figure at the time.

Some of the more recent revisionists have moved opinion away from those of Tactitus, Suetonius and Dio, arguing that the criticisms are unfair, sharing Holland’s view.

Final score

The room here is hardly adequate to assess Nero, or this book in detail. Although Holland’s revisionist approach does seem to marry with the contemporary revisionist attitude to Nero, I feel like he sometimes stretched to justify Nero’s mania. The evidence was generally sufficient and good, his writing style was enjoyable for a historical biography but sometimes some of the key questions weren’t given enough time to instead make room for comparisons such as to Jesus Christ which was just strange. The book is therefore a mixed effort in all. Having said this it was a very readable book, so might be decent as an introduction, but I wouldn’t use it for a sophisticated exploration of the sources. It might be better to go with a more recent biography that gives the alleged vices and vindictive acts by Nero more attention.

6/10