Nero

I love this book, it shows us the Emperor Nero as we should have studied him, without all the bias and fabrications of a prejudiced post-Nero Rome.

...In preparation for the writing of a long article about Nero, I have read several biographies of the emperor, in particular Griffin, Grant, Weigall, Shotter, Walter and Warmington. I have also collected many articles from journals to get additional points of view - and I must note that Mr. Holland does not list a single article in his bibliography. It is clear that the author is deeply interested in ancient history but he falls short of his goal to rewrite the history of the maligned Nero. Despite some excellent insights the discussion remains stuck in relating the ancient sources without asking questions. What I took for a bold look at Nero turned out to be pretty much what others have said before, only they have done it much clearer.I was particularly interested in what Mr. Holland had to say about the death of Agrippina, thinking he might have read the article by H. Dawson that seeks a different interpretation. No such luck: Mr. Holland gives us the story straight out of Tacitus without wondering if these events really happened. The story of Agrippina's murder is very theatrical and some doubts have been expressed as to if it was outright murder or did Nero's mother actually conspire against him? How could all of the events: the collapse of the boat, Agrippina's rescue by an oysterman, her traveling back to her miles some miles away in a litter (borrowed?), Agrippina's arrival home, sending a message to Nero, her murder and cremation all in the hours from sometime after midnight to dawn. There is plenty here for Mr. Holland to set the record straight about. Why then attempt to introduce the unsupportable suggestion that Nero was a masochist?Mr. Holland often tries to rationalize events that other authors dismiss without giving good reasons. For example, he accepts Poppaea's nagging as one of the causes of Agrippina's murder where all other authors understand this as a transposition of Tacitus to better explain why Nero acted. Mr. Holland does have some good insight into Roman history, particularly in the administration of the empire. I do find that his comparison between Jesus and Nero in his introduction is misplaced. The details about Pontius Pilate and the birth of Christianity were a needlessly protracted discussion. The point was to discuss the Great Fire and how the Christians were chosen to be Nero's scapegoats. There also are some small outright errors in the text: Caligula's fourth (and final) wife was not younger but older by about 7 years, his brother Drusus was not exiled but imprisoned under the palace, there were attempts to force feed Agrippina the Elder and Aelia Patina was Claudius' second, not third wife. These may be picky little errors but they are numerous.In providing an historical background Mr. Holland tends to go overboard. His summary of Caligula's reign provides more detail than necessary but he also cannot give a full discussion of the facts, particularly about Caligula's assassination. There are three versions of the assassination but Mr. Holland relates only one (the only agreement between the ancient sources is that Caligula was not mortally wounded by the first blow). The information about Caligula needed to be treated with less detail befitting his minor part in Nero's life.I think this book is an opportunity missed. Having read the larger share of books about Nero, not one by itself answered all of my questions about Nero. Miriam Griffin's biography is the best but it is choppy and sometimes she provides no details about events. If one wants to read a serious biography about Nero, go to Griffin.

As the dust-jacket says, the author of this book, Richard Holland, was a journalist for 25 years - he therefore isn't a historian. The dust-jacket also notes that this is Mr. Holland's first biographical work. As you read this book, these two aspects of the author become apparent. A good historian presents the facts, without bias. This is something Mr. Holland has not done here.This book has a journalist's feel to it, in that it reads like the author is running a big 'scoop'. He has set himself the task of making Nero a really nice guy, who was misunderstood and totally maligned by history.The problem is this - was Nero the Mr. Nice-Guy that Mr. Holland would have us believe? Sure, he tells the story of Nero murdering his mother, but most of the book reads like a magazine article, making excuses for the man history has labeled a monster. Obviously, Nero wasn't as bad as we are told by history, but was he as 'nice' as Mr. Holland thinks he was? The fact that the author is so convinced of Nero's innocence, and wants us to believe his theory so much, that the book ends up being a quite annoying. The book's formular is this - an episode from Nero's life is told, then the reasons why History is wrong, and why Nero didn't do 'such-and-such-a-thing' is explained in vast detail. This is what becomes annoying. Making excuses for a historical figure instead of telling their life story soon becomes boring.Another curious thing I found about this book is that at the beginning of the book, Mr. Holland shoots down in flames Tacitus, Seutonius and Dio, the main Historians of the Roman period, and tells why they cannot be belived with regards to Nero's life. In the same chapter, he then demolishes the reputations of the Emperors Augustus and Claudius, explaining why History was wrong in its depiction of these 2 Emperors, who were really the monsters. But Mr. Holland uses Tacitus, Seutonius and Dio as evidence of Claudius' evil. If these Historians were correct about Augustus and Claudius, why were they wrong about Nero?For anyone interested in Roman history, the best books are those written by historians, or rather, history-writers, not sensationalist journalists who think they are historians. Just compare this book with Dr. Michael Grant's excellent book on Nero, and even compare these two writer's styles, and see who makes the better author - the historian or the journalist.