Nero: Emperor and Court

by John F. Drinkwater

This book portrays Nero, not as the murderous tyrant of tradition, but as a young man ever-more reluctant to fulfil his responsibilities as emperor and ever-more anxious to demonstrate his genuine skills as a sportsman and artist. This reluctance caused him to allow others to rule, and rule surprisingly well, in his name. On its own terms, the Neronian empire was in fact remarkably successful. Nero's senior ministers were many and various, but notably they included a number of powerful women, such as his mother, Agrippina II, and his second and third wives, Poppaea Sabina and Statilia Messalina. Using the most recent archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic and literary research, the book explores issues such as court-politics, banter and free speech; literary, technological and scientific advances; the Fire of 64, 'the persecution of Christians' and Nero's 'Golden House'; and the huge underlying strength, both constitutional and financial, of the Julio-Claudian empire.

Genres: History, Biography, Roman History

457 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 3, 2019

About the author

British classicist John Frederick Drinkwater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F....

Reviews

[Ozymandias · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are a lot of biographies of Nero out there. So why do we need another one? What does this one do that others don’t? That should be the basic question everyone should ask before marching onto such well-trodden ground. And in fairness, many biographers have. Griffin tried hard to correct a lot of the myths grown up around Nero. Champlin was (often overly) obsessive in trying to read every last hint of meaning in Nero’s public performances. But I do think that this book does something very different from the others.

This book is not a conventional biography. If you know nothing of Nero’s life, you’ll likely find yourself very confused, because this is an analysis of his reign broken down clearly by subject. Barbara Levick’s written bios of Tiberius, Claudius and Vespasian in this format, as has Barrett for Caligula, but somehow Nero’s gotten skipped over. Breaking down a reign like this has several clear advantages. It allows us to see the development of Nero’s policies over the course of time. It lets us consider key aspects of his reign all together. And it makes clear when elements seem out of place.

This book has a very overwhelming central thesis: that Nero never really ruled his empire. Rather, he had a string of ambitious men serving in his administration that ran things for him while he devoted himself to his hobbies. This makes a good deal of sense to me. I’ve often wondered when reading other biographies how a man so obviously uninterested in governing could establish a generally successful set of policies for his reign. Drinkwater’s answer is that a rotating section of top amici sorted that out, starting with Agrippina, then Seneca and Burrus and moving on to Tigellinus and Poppaea. Most of the stranger aspects of Nero’s reign are what he calls “breakouts”; incidents when Nero, acting the stubborn child, pigheadedly pushed through his own pet idea just to show he could and escape from the domination of his advisors. In this view, Nero’s fall was due to his final breakout: his refusal to lead the army being raised against the usurper Vindex. At this point his advisors grew disgusted with him and his secure position evaporated due to the emperor’s sulk.

The other central argument of this book is one I found rather less compelling. I actually kinda like Nero and find his monstrousness massively overstated by the pompous authors of the second century, but this book completely whitewashes everything about his reign. Basically, Nero is depicted as encouraging an unusual degree of free speech, competing fairly in contests, generally being merciful to traitors, and faithful in relationships. The basic problem with this is that he’s rejecting all evidence that contradicts a positive vision of Nero for no better reason than that it does contradict a positive vision of Nero. Some of the more frustrating examples of this are where he quite explicitly rejects a statement about Nero on the grounds that it doesn’t match what we know of the man. Well of course his personality doesn’t match the vicious monster of history if you reject any negative statements about him on the grounds that it doesn’t match his personality!

Now much of this follows logically from his previous conclusion: if Nero never actually ran his own principate then how could he be responsible for all the people killed in it? And I accept that as true to a certain degree. But the number of times we’re told it was necessary to have someone killed because they were a potential threat to his reign is staggering. I reject the realpolitik conclusion here both on principle and as a basis for analysis. If literally nothing done in the name of preserving the emperor can be wrong, how can we judge whether the emperor was in line with cultural norms or whether he was making intelligent political decisions? And perhaps for that reason I found his conclusion that Nero’s fall was sudden and based on a narrow rejection by the men running his empire weak. Three rebellions (and a narrowly averted fourth) popping up within months of each other is a pretty clear sign that all was not well.

Despite its weaknesses, this book is an excellent entry into Neronic studies. The central thesis provides a radical new way of looking at the reign (even if the evidence for it is subjective) and the analysis of the imperial administration, fiscal policy, and political structure is first rate. Again, I wouldn’t select this book as your introduction to Nero, but it will undoubtedly serve well as a source for further studies.

[Kenneth Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nero: Emperor and Court is a must-read story about key influencers in Nero's life, his decision-making or lack thereof, and the abundantly detailed political climate of Ancient Rome. The lucid analysis of the latter is a pleasant bonus that binds and strengthens the story.

The book's strongest feature is the many footnoted details and arguments presented by significant Nero historians. The author makes frequent use of comparisons and contrasts, and through his mastery of the material, advances the most compelling narrative. The result is an accessible story. Nero does not come across as a caricature but as a living being: not who he was, but what he was not. Of course, this is the beauty of the story; Professor Drinkwater does not preach and leaves it up to the readers to draw their conclusions.

The ending and conclusion were the most substantial parts of the book. Many examples illustrate Nero as a tragic figure. He suffered personal tragedies and endured trials while losing family, advisors, confidantes, and friends. He wasn't a delegator but surrounded himself with good people or, at the very least, trustworthy decision-makers. Nero failed to attain the expectations of what it took to be a solid and decisive leader. His indecisiveness and indifference to governing began to cause perturbations and instability within the government. Nero had to go.

This is the second book that I have read by Professor Drinkwater, and both his writing methodology and style should serve as a model for all history books. He invites the reader on a scholarly journey and educates in an entertaining manner. Excellent book!

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gets an overall three-star rating, which itself is a complex of three subratings and some downward rounding. (I was probably at 3.5 stars overall, but with every full review here on Goodreads going 5 stars and the total of all ratings at 4.5? Nope. Needed some evening out.)

First, I give an easy 5 stars on his discussion of the Principate and imperial administration in the whole latter half of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Drinkwater shows how any Princeps did not rule alone. A consilium, with various segments, from official imperial administration, through personal friends, and through senators more closely tied to the leader, and on to trusted military leaders, were part of the circle of governance. In Nero’s particular case, this was Agrippina in the leadership for his early months, along with Pallas, and Pallas continuing on, then Seneca and Burrus, then Tigellinus and Poppaea through her death and the Pisonian conspiracy. But, things started falling apart after that, to some degree, though Drinkwater says they weren’t that bad until after Nero’s return from Greece and Vindex rising up in the name of the Republic.

Second, something of close intellectual interest to me? Nero, the Great Fire, Tacitus’ chapter in the Annals, and just who may have been persecuted, or not. Drinkwater gets 3 stars here, and that may be generous. I agree with Drinkwater that the fire was an accident. I agree that Tacitus seems to have seen it that way. I disagree on who, if anybody, was scapegoated.

I will address this issue in MUCH more detail in one or more posts at my philosophy and critical religion blog. And, that main post is now up. But, the nickel version? First, Drinkwater claims, riffing on the book of Acts, that “Christians” were first called such NOT at Antioch, but at Rome at this time. I strongly disagree, first on grounds that there probably were no more than 600 Christians in Rome at this time (Drinkwater seems to be in the general ballpark on numbers HE postulates) and so, out of a population of 600,000 could not even have been on Nero’s radar screen, and second on grounds that Christians weren’t separated from Jews at the time enough to be separately identified. Beyond that, he’s making an argument from silence, and he knows that. I don’t accept that from Christian mythicists and I don’t accept it from him.

Given what Tacitus writes, the word he uses for “Christ” being an itacism in Greek, and other things, plus what I mention above? There are two options besides Christians being persecuted. One is that Messianic Jewish rebels were blamed …. “a certain ChrEEstos” χρηστός (the itacism for Christos Χριστός) being “HaMosiach,” or Jewish Messianic rebels. Suetonius claims Claudius booted Jews because of this same person (CHREStus was also a name adopted by freedmen), and I find it laughable that, if there’s truth behind that, that Suetonius is referring to Christians, though Drinkwater appears to think he was.

The second option more likely to me than actual Christians is that Tacitus is repeating another scurrilous story, like the ones he repeats about Christians in his own time, and figures he can “bank shot” a smear of Christians and a smear of Nero for his barbaric ALLEGED executions making them look sympathetic all at once. (Remember, if there was no separate identification of Christians, there was no execution of them as such.)

Part three is 3 1/2 stars.

I agree with much of Drinkwater’s revisionist history (which is not sui generis by any means on Nero but is part of a trend). I think that Brittanicus likely did die of natural causes. Agrippina was not placed on a rigged boat, but was traveling on her own on a normal military boat supplied by Nero, which had an accident. He was apparently with Burrus and Seneca, and they were glad and he downcast when they thought she died and reversed when she appeared to have survived. They then framed a messenger from her as a would-be assassin and things went from there. Drinkwater makes a good case that Poppaea’s death after miscarriage was not an intent to kill her or even an intent to cause the miscarriage, as Nero had no heir.

At some point, however, Drinkwater’s revisionist history apologetics. In this, it becomes so after the Great Fire, and especially after the Pisonian conspiracy.

Essentially, Drinkwater ignores, as much as possible, people and incidents that undercut him. Tigellinus’ growing unpopularity is one. Sporus is another. Drinkwater passes up no opportunity to attack Suetonius when he thinks he’s wrong. But, he never addresses the claim that Nero had Sporus castrated. Instead, he repeated refers to “Sporus / ‘Poppaea,’ “ exactly as written with Poppaea in scare quotes, and says nothing else. Silence gives assent, per the old proverb. (Dio Cassius also refer to the full Sporos story, which means Drinkwater couldn’t reject it away so easily.) I also find this continued dual referencing simply weird. Yes, to Nero, Sporos may have looked like Poppaea. But he wasn’t Poppaea. And, if he was, then that’s a sign of mental illness. And, if Nero really doubled down on make-believe? Ditto.

Drinkwater also contradicts himself at times. He says alcohol may have contributed to his violence against Poppaea, but elsewhere says Nero, even at the end of his life, had no real problems. He also ignores that Nero could have been alcoholic but not immediately have been overcome by it. He does in the Introduction admit that Nero seemed to have had some sort of “breakdown” on his return from Greece, but in the body copy, doesn’t discuss that in more detail.

He also doesn’t discuss how much coercion of Greek cities and the administrators of various Greek games was done for Nero to win his trophies.

One other note, on something in his conclusion: The apparent distinction between Principate and the Dominate/Tetrarchy autocracy of Diocletian is somewhat arbitrary. I also think he overstates the continued Principate as a driving cause for third-century emperors during the Crisis to continue to come to Rome to seek Senate approval.

Finally, a brief side note. Drinkwater’s choice on when to use modern names, when ancient, is puzzling. He uses “Anzio” instead of “Antium,” for example, but “Vesontio” instead of “Besançon.”

No, finally finally a second side note. Drinkwater’s an academic historian, yet uses “AD” rather than “CE” (and when needed, “BC” rather than “BCE.” I had noted it earlier, but given how wrong I think he is about Xns and the Great Fire, it may just have been the tipping point down to a third star, inasmuch as I now wonder if it’s something related to his thoughts on Tacitus. OTOH, Adrian Goldsworthy does the same; maybe it’s imperial hubris of older British historians?

So, overall? Fairly to pretty good, but could have been better, albeit given that Drinkwater is set in some of his revisionism, and his claims about early Christianity, it almost certainly couldn’t have been better from him. Barrett’s “Rome is Burning” is probably not better. Drinkwater makes a good case that Rome was NOT in financial crisis under Nero, that the currency was carefully realigned, not debased, and other things, contra Barrett.

[Humphry Knipe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nero : Emperor and Court
This is an encyclopedic resource for everything Neronian. Small of print, swarming with footnotes on every page, this is a book which delivers even more than its 447 pages promises. And although it was published a year before the current British Museum exhibition which exonerates Nero from the 2,000 years of opprobrium that has besmirched his name, this jubilant read reveals a man who was neither sadistic nor lazy but an energetic, highly talented artist daring to make his dream world a reality even at the cost of outraging the powerful upper classes in the Roman empire’s highly stratified society.
What I looked for and didn’t find was any reference to astrology which, in Neronian times, exceeded every religion in power and influence. In fact it may have been a prediction made by Nero’s court astrologer Balbillus and leaked to everyone who mattered which forced Nero to face the fact that his “evil hour” had finally arrived.

[Brock Tarlton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should I just copy and paste the book review I had to write? By far the best Roman imperial biography I've read so far. Although Brinkwater does excuse almost everything Nero does...still a very interesting and thorough book!

[Xackery Irving · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-examining Nero as more than the public enemy Emperor. Scholarly read replete with footnotes on every page. Paints a vivid picture of the power dynamics of the dying days of the Julio-Claudian principate and the inner workings of post-Republic Roman power and influence.

[William Terry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Looks at every aspect of Nero via primary and secondary sources

Easy to understand. The style is accessible and draws from writers who are mostly hostile to Nero. A very good biography and history of the early Roman Empire.