Nero: The Man Behind the Myth

by Richard Holland

This book rescues the man from the myth, to show that he was a man and not a monster.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Classics, Roman History, Roman, Ancient History

Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Evan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author's arrogance and overly confident conclusions are not annoying enough to detract from the theatre of Nero's life.

[Elliott · Rating 1 out of 5]

Logically much of Nero's excesses were probably apocryphal, though Holland in this book takes thing to an extreme in trying to rehabilitate the fifth emperor as a man of peace, culture, and kindness. Granted Holland does do some fine work in sorting through the stories: Nero kicking Poppaea to death, the oft mentioned-though false-"fiddling while Rome burned story," and his quotes comparing Rome to Troy, as well as a very interesting appendix claiming Nero as a masochist rather than a sadist. However that's about all. Holland then spends the rest of the book dumping all the other ills of Nero either on his adoptive father Claudius, or else merely dismissing them as "illogical," with little to justify either. There are two problems with Holland's narrative: A. Holland tries to explain everything, and B. Nero was, like it or not, an awful ruler.
Any classical historian will admit that while certainly much is known about this period of antiquity, very little can be considered hard, reliable evidence. Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, etc. all had their own personal biases, differing sources, and often contradict each other. But nonetheless it is all that there is, and while much can certainly be written off very easily i.e. Poppaea's death as being probably false, it is very hard to dispute that Nero was still a very vain individual at heart and that much pertaining to this vanity is probably true. His feud with Lucan screams of it, his proscription of Antistius for speaking ill of him at a party, the 30 meter golden statue of himself that he commissioned, and in general his constant pursuit of popularity. Eventually this pursuit of popularity hit the Roman Treasury hard, forced Vindex into revolt, and led to his being declared a public enemy and forced suicide. He stripped the Senate of much of its former power under previous emperors (a foreshadowing of the later Caesars strict authoritarianism), and never seemed to get along with any other organization of Roman Rule. I thus find it hard to accept Nero as anything less than a complete failure, and for that matter Holland's arguments unconvincing.

[Joey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have to admit to being confused by the low rating for this book. I really enjoyed reading it. However, I was really young when I read it so maybe I would not be so impressed. Still I stand by my 5 stars!!!

[Calwriter8966 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gives a very interesting argument refuting much of the myth about the man. Similar to what we "know" about Richard III, what we think we know was all written later and by authors with axes to grind.

[Ralph Burton · Rating 4 out of 5]

It takes serious balls to write a “oh, he was a bit misguided” book about Nero. That’s why I’m tempted to give this five stars. At the end of the day, Holland’s arguments rely on ethics (killing your mother, adoptive brother etc. wasn’t that bad at the time etc.). So, ironically for a Roman book, is best taken with a pinch of salt. Yet, a psychological profile of someone so fucked up they were just weird (not in any way cool) is a bold attempt either way.

[Carrie Marshall · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in preparation for our Italy vacation. Rome has just uncovered more of Nero’s palace. I think history is hard on Nero. I read a National Geographic article about the truth of Nero and since this book was written in 2000- more accurate information is available.

[Jeremy Maddux · Rating 4 out of 5]

Succeeds in amusing and entertaining, but fails in rehabilitating Nero's image.

[Nate · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really bad. Not worth the time.