Customer Reviews


14 Reviews
5 star:
 (7)
4 star:
 (2)
3 star:
 (5)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


27 of 29 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An Excellent Reevaluation of Nero The Emperor/Entertainer
Edward Champlin's book provides a revolutionary approach to understanding the commonly misperceived Nero, who now is often portrayed as a demented fool who watched Rome burn while reciting the Iliad; who brutally executed Christians for entertainment; and, whose death was celebrated far and wide. Champlin dispels these misconceptions as products of bias and shows that...
Published on April 11, 2005 by Octavius

versus
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A Good Analysis of Nero's Presentation That Takes the Argument Too Far
The thesis of this book is that Nero was entirely sane and all interpretations of Nero come from distortions of the way he presented himself. Dr. Champlin's argument compares Nero with various mythological figures. That these line up with specific features or events in Nero's life is, he argues, evidence that Nero promoted these similarities himself through his...
Published on September 28, 2011 by Arch Stanton


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

27 of 29 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An Excellent Reevaluation of Nero The Emperor/Entertainer, April 11, 2005
By 
Octavius (United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Nero (Hardcover)
Edward Champlin's book provides a revolutionary approach to understanding the commonly misperceived Nero, who now is often portrayed as a demented fool who watched Rome burn while reciting the Iliad; who brutally executed Christians for entertainment; and, whose death was celebrated far and wide. Champlin dispels these misconceptions as products of bias and shows that Nero remained a positive mythological hero for over 400 years after his death even to some Christians and, that he was well loved by a great majority of the people: particularly in Greece and Asia Minor.

The book retraces the common sources on Nero as being Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch and Dio. Champlin demonstrates how the Latin and Christian sources tend to be severely negative while the Greek ones are either neutral or positive. Champlin then shows how Nero was really a Hellenic phillantropist who freed Greece from taxes and gave it its autonomy. He notes that, after his death, three impostors pretending to be Nero came out of Greece and Asia Minor with significant followings and explains that this could not have happened unless a significant group of people saw Nero as an enlightened folk hero. Champlin reveals also many other biases in Suetonius and Tacitus depicting Nero as tone-deaf and without talent. Champlin shows that other writers commented significantly well on his skills and that the impostors were tested as to their claimed identities by being asked to sing and/or play the lyre. He also demonstrates how members of all classes in Rome willingly participated in both his public and private spectacles and that this wasn't just flattery on their part. More importantly, Champlin shows that Nero was very conscious of his public image and that his public appearances and performances met the collective needs of his audience in being assured of his benevolent rule despite his misdeeds such as incest and matricide. Champlin argues that this well calculated propaganda and interplay with the crowd was the key to Nero's sense of self and power: Nero the artist, entertainer, and idol whose mythological persona wooed the crowds who in turn approved of him as their champion. Champlin thus shows that Nero was hardly a depraved imbecil but a very creative and intelligent self-propagandist.

The book is comprehensive but would be even better if it emphasized certain points more clearly. First, for emperors such as Nero and Caligula it is important to supplement the historical analysis with a psychological one as both were psychotic in one way or another: Caligula being primarily a completely deranged sociopath while Nero demonstrated more an Oedipus complex and abandonment issues. Modern readers fail to appreciate that Nero, who died at 30, was very much a boy trapped in a man's body whose mother was none other than Caligula's sister: an overbearing, overambitious, and incestuous mother who sought to rule for herself through her son. With this in context, the image of Nero the monster becomes more of a sad story of a young man whose youth must have been a traumatizing ordeal: a shy and insecure boy of 16 put on the throne by a sinister and depraved mother. Nero's ascension to the throne and breaking away from his mother required strong approval for something that he achieved without his mother's meddling: he found that approval in the crowds and in the Hellenic world with his obsessive devotion to the arts. Nero wanted to act and play games where he would be loved and approved and his artistic talents were the key to that approval: he soon found that such approval could be manipulated into his own collage of the mythical hero for the collective Roman/Greek psyche. The book should have also clarified that many in the Hellenistic world also loved Nero because he was the promoter of major, mostly Greek, factions and guilds involving the arts that affected a broad spectrum of Roman society: most importantly, all of the 4 chariot factions in Rome had strong ties to Greece and Asia minor and they benefitted immensely from Nero's largesse. Finally, the book should have clarified more on the Christians and their place in society at the time. For most of the world at that time, Christianity was nothing more than an obscure and militant sect that followed the teachings of a Jewish rabble rouser crucified under Tiberius' reign. Christians were also very evangelical and apocalyptic at that time: devoted followers strongly believed that Judgment Day was near and Christ would come back to overthrow The Beast (The number 666 in the Apocalypse spells as 'Nero' in Hebraic numerology.) Such beliefs could only have been perceived by pagan Rome as threat to the State requiring strong and immediate punishment. Thus, the modern view of Nero as an Anti-Christ is rather misleading if put into context: Nero was a pagan and never believed in the Judeo-Christian model of the world, he therefore never chose to assume the role of Satan in the biblical sense as modern Satanists (who ultimately accept the notion of God/Satan/Christ/Heaven/Hell as a theological model) would do for example. In addition, the punishment inflicted on the Christians wasn't exceptionally more cruel than the punishment given to all other criminals at that time. Unfortunately, it is with this false paradigm that Nero has been misunderstood until today as a cruel Anti-Christ out to destroy a peaceful religious institution and the book should emphasize this misconception more clearly.

In any case, this is a fascinating reevaluation of Nero "The Monster/Anti-Christ" as Nero "The Mythical Hero" whose largesse and promotion of the arts made him a well loved emperor by a majority of the populace in the Empire, especially in Greece and Asia Minor. Indeed, his unpopularity was pervasive in the smaller but more powerful social circles of the nobility, army, and the imperial bureaucracy who felt the consequences of a bankrupt treasury much more than the common populace who were the ones who obtained all of the benefits from it. The book dispels the misconception of Nero being a depraved imbecil and shows him to have been a very intelligent and energetic artist/emperor who used his artistic talents to define his public image as a mythical hero. The book is easy to read both for the scholar and the casual reader. I recommend it for anyone who wants an unbiased evaluation of one of Rome's most facinating emperors.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


13 of 13 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars The man, the monster, the legend., October 13, 2005
By 
Jon Torodash (New York, NY USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Nero (Hardcover)
Champlin bravely asserts his own contribution to the great wealth of Neronian scholarship for the critics to pick apart. I find very little to quibble about.
It is difficult to write even-handedly about Nero for a Western audience. Who could forget the image of a man who "fiddled while Rome burned" or the terrible tyrant who had begun a nearly 170 year "persecution" of the early Christians, under whose reign both Peter and Paul were executed? As other reviewer comments reveal, you can easily earn the brand of a Nero "apologist" if you don't tow the party line, however inaccurate it might be.

Champlin's thesis can be stated simply as follows: many, if not most of Nero's grandstands and outrageous actions, were performed out of considerable political shrewdness and calculation - not the madness or puerile excess wrongly attributed to a "live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse" emperor. Nero's success, Champlin argues in the first chapter, is evinced by a shockingly prolonged "afterlife" manifested in pseudo-Neros, Judeo-Christian apocalyptic writings, and a disenfranchised populace openly lamenting his death. Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder, (working on the same assumption,) whether he had truly orchestrated his public relations as well as Champlin suggests given his untimely demise at age 30.

Some reviewers disagree, but I reckon Champlin's original Nero-Periander link to be one of the most intriguing ideas in ancient biography I've ever seen. The ambivalent relationship with the mother, the Philhellenism, the artistic bent, and the numerous other links are too compelling to ignore outright, even if the conclusion a hard sell. Further research is warranted, but I suspect that Champlin, with his great intellect and energy, may have already exhausted all of the available evidence for advancing his thesis. He demonstrates the Augustus/Antony connections thoroughly. The discussion of the great fire of 64 is arrestingly well done: after convincingly presenting the defense for Nero's innocence, he suddenly shatters the deception in stating that despite this preceding evidence, Nero undoubtedly held direct responsibility for the coflagration. It hits you with dramatic effect almost equal to one of the primary sources comprising the centerpiece of his proof in this sudden reversal: Tacitus' Annales XV.67.

Champlin's organization is somewhat bothersome as it is in "Final Judgments," because he rejects chronological arrangement for thematic foci. This requires repetition of several facts, and I cannot understand his reasons for the chapter order. The post-mortem legacy of Nero, being most fascinating, he puts up front obviously to hook his reader. It serves as an interesting set piece for further discourse, because the inevitable wonder we feel about Nero's impression on the world ever after demands explanation: thus the rest of the book. But with Dio, Suetonius, and Tacitus unfolding the bulk of their own histories so methodically, the rearrangement isn't always a neat fit. Still, Champlin's brilliant weaving together of hundreds of sources, as before, vindicates his literary decisions several times over.

Champlin, like any other historian, has his hypotheses and directs his evidence toward proving them. His presentation however, is replete with past scholarship and primary sources presented candidly and fairly. One of the most appreciable inclusions is the extensive collection of Latin graffiti, which add a critical dimension to our knowledge. This book has been for me an introduction into full-strength Neronian scholarship and I found it both accessible and empowering enough to read further with confidence.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


15 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Now Playing: Nero, November 14, 2003
By 
This review is from: Nero (Hardcover)
Champlin has written a delightful book about a troubled Caesar. As the current tends, the author glides much of the discussion of Nero into a course that resembles the sentence: that actor is the emperor whose performances are his politics. Nero's recognition of the real necessity for memorable spectacles as politcally provident does not separate him from other Caesars, however his rare compulsion to be the spectacle in its entirety does. Champlin works hard to identify the tainted strands of Nero's story and succeeds at separating some of the thoroughly tendentious traditions from the popular but less evident cheers for the better buildings and bigger spectacles he sponsored. It was exciting to learn of Nero's afterlife and of all those who expected his return in the fashion of some sort of ur-Elvis.
The book is tastefully written and compelling, particularly in its informative appraisal of the historians whose works mold most of the early modern and modern perceptions of this prince. Until his death, Nero sought to create a world that would correspond to his desires; Rome became his Golden Home and primary stage. Champlin reveals much about Nero and his world. This book overflows the boundary of biography to spread into the fields of performance, politics, popular reception, Roman religion, art and historiography. I heartily recommend it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A Good Analysis of Nero's Presentation That Takes the Argument Too Far, September 28, 2011
By 
Arch Stanton (Nottingham, UK) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Nero (Hardcover)
The thesis of this book is that Nero was entirely sane and all interpretations of Nero come from distortions of the way he presented himself. Dr. Champlin's argument compares Nero with various mythological figures. That these line up with specific features or events in Nero's life is, he argues, evidence that Nero promoted these similarities himself through his self-presentation and visual style. Much of this information is useful. His analysis of Nero's change from identifying himself with Apollo to associating with Helios is particularly interesting and most likely correct. This book will not serve as a conventional biography, as he admits himself in the introduction, but is intended to explain the proper way of viewing Nero's actions. The evidence used is almost entirely literary. Despite warning about the unreliability of the sources earlier in the book, even going so far as to call them Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, and "Dio" for the epitome, Dr. Champlin uses these sources in great detail almost unquestioningly. This is a problem inherent in many historical works perhaps, but it is particularly obvious here given the way that he uses his sources. They are all treated as biased but essentially all the facts and events listed are presented as true.

The problem with the account is that he really does take most of what he reads as true. Even the obvious slanders are treated as perversions of Nero's own presentation. For example on entirely questionable and circumstantial evidence he asserts that Nero did indeed burn down the city of Rome. His evidence is: he twice cancelled a trip to the east for sudden and mysterious reasons, he experienced omens in advance of the disaster, and he was accused by a member of his own guard of setting the fire only nine months after it happened. The middle point does not even require an explanation. Omens were found for every major event in Roman history and could frequently be recalled only after the event. The cancelling of the trip is unusual but hardly cause for such a sweeping accusation. It is not proof. The member of the guard who accused Nero was venting his disgust at the emperor for his way of living and was not necessarily true. None of this is really strong evidence compared to the evidence against: it was just two days after a full moon and therefore a bad night for arson, fires were a constant threat in Rome, Tacitus himself (the most reliable source) was uncertain and seemed to favor an accident, the fires did not start in the areas where Nero wanted to build his Golden House, the fire (while dramatic) was a horribly impractical way of clearing the area and did much damage to his buildings as well, the rebuilding was expensive and drained Rome's treasury substantially, and the people did not blame Nero for it. He views the evidence as damning, but that is because he puts such a high value on his interpretation of Nero's character. Champlin views nothing that Nero does as an accident, so all the little details must be made to fit. Nero is always in control of the situation and is rarely portrayed as merely reacting to events. Since Nero demonstrated such eagerness building his Golden House he must have planned it in advance. In many ways this invalidates Champlin's thesis that Nero was not insane since only a madman would burn down his own capital for no good reason. Unless people fully subscribe to Champlin's interpretation of Nero's character they are unlikely to buy his explanation for the fire.

Most of the evidence is not in dispute, only his interpretation of it. For example, he holds that Nero's famous quote "What an artist perishes in me," (In Latin qualis artifex pereo) is entirely wrong. Artifex can mean craftsman as well as artist and since he was directing the digging of his own grave Champlin argues that he is referring to himself as a craftsman and not an artist. He is in fact saying "what an artist I am in my dying," presumably ironically. Thus he is not mourning his own death but how low he has fallen in his final hours. While the Latin can be taken in that sense it seems While this is rather a minor point to be going on at length about in such a brief paper Dr. Champlin makes a major deal of this in the first part of the book. He views this phrase as symptomatic of the way that Nero's actual words and deeds have been continuously misinterpreted over the centuries. In a way it is symptomatic of his work as a whole. It can be interpreted in that way, but you have to look at it from a very odd angle.

This book is brilliant at analyzing the reason behind Nero's public presentation and his choice of heroes to emulate. His actions do make much more sense when viewed in the context of the heroes of the ancient world. A Periander for example lived to extremes and was not very likeable, yet he was much admired. Nero's presentation of his actions offer wonderful parallels with ancient gods and heroes and it seems to be intentional. The manner in which he was loved by the common man suggests that he was successful in associating himself with these figures. The analysis of ancient mores, particularly where performing was concerned, showed that his desire to perform was not as extreme an act as it has been made out to appear in the sources. What enraged contemporaries was his attempt to do it on a professional level. These conclusions are well reasoned and pick out examples of contemporary attitudes with great skill. On the other hand Champlin's use of the sources for historical events is questionable. There is a fine line between trusting the sources too much and discarding too many as unreliable. The author trusts his sources far too much. When he is reporting on contemporary attitudes and opinions this works to his advantage since even a hopelessly inaccurate work reflects an opinion, but when he tries to argue events from character motivation he gets too carried away with himself. If one accepts that Nero did all the things attributed to him then this book will likely make a great deal of sense. If not then it offers some intriguing possibilities but goes too far in its conclusions.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding, But Not What I Needed, November 12, 2009
By 
B. D. Cooper (Grosse Pointe, Michigan) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Nero (Paperback)
As an undergraduate, I took Roman History I (up to Augustus), a very good course. Because I was getting a double major in economics and classical languages, I did not have time to take Roman History II, a deficiency I have felt during the several decades since then, although it has nothing to do with my career. So I decided to read a biography of each emperor where available, from Augustus to Justinian.

I am now at Nero, for whom I bought this book because of the credentials of the author and the publisher. This was a mistake. I was 100 pages into the book before I realized I would never come to a chapter that began "Nero was born in ...." This is not a biography but rather a large number of short essays on historiographical problems loosely organized into thematic chapters. I have had to resort to the Oxford Classical Dictionary and numerous surveys of the early Empire to find out basic information about Nero and his reign.

This is probably an excellent second book to read about Nero for the analysis of the contemporary evidence, but I still don't know what would be the best book to start with.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Nero, May 2, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Nero (Kindle Edition)
If you've read any relatively recent works on ancient Rome, you'll know that the contemporary sources were infamously unreliable. The principate, established by Augustus, disenfranchised the large aristocracy known as the senatorial class who were, unfortunately for posterity, also responsible for documenting the era. It's therefore accepted that, from them, a historian is only able to gain piecemeal understanding of any Roman figure, especially when it comes to emperors.

That they would be hostile is a given but, in "Nero," Edward Champlin doesn't merely accept this at its face, instead deciding to devote to it an inordinate amount of time. He compares one source to another and points out the inconsistencies and, in most cases, reconciles them. Easily, he could have simply given one example and then asked us to take his word for it but, instead, continues his discussion of nuanced minutiae throughout.

When Champlin finally decides to relate his theory it is, in effect, that "Nero the emperor" can only be understood through "Nero the performer." Because of the notorious difficulties a historian faces in writing an adequate biography of any ancient person, Champlin's interpretation is an interesting way to suss out his life but, by using the games of Nero's reign to evaluate his career as princeps, he forces all knowledge of Nero through a constricted window. While in some instances this works, as with Nero's marriage to Pythagoras and his debauchery of Roman youth, his theory ultimately limits any conclusions he can draw.

From the skewed history we do have, we know that Nero was undoubtedly an interesting character. He burned Christians and castrated a youth and made him his bride! While he may or may not have practiced incest, Champlin argues that he almost certainly killed his mother. The evidence for this? Champlin points to his interest in Oedipus. For Champlin's Nero, life was literally a stage and he the central character. While it's probably true that Nero both killed his mother and enjoyed artistic works, Champlin is grasping at straws to establish a connection between the two.

Unlike other reviewers here, I entered this foray without much preexisting knowledge of Nero. Also unlike the revisionist works of Caligula by Aloys Winterling or Socrates by Robin Waterfield, I felt that Champlin's "Nero" requires a rather extensive knowledge of the historicity of the emperor with an overriding interest in the intricacies of Roman entertainment and Senatorial misinformation to be enjoyable to any layperson or amateur historian.

But the biggest disappointment is the limitations established by Champlin himself. In order to link the fictions (myths, tragedies, etc) and the facts (as we are able to know them) of Nero's life, Champlin relates an extensive history of Roman beliefs. In and of themselves both these fictions and facts are appealing, but his attempts to tie them together are regrettably not.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Nero: Hero Or Monster?, July 23, 2013
This review is from: Nero (Kindle Edition)
Nero is the most controversial figure in Western history. He was denounced as the Antichrist by the early Christians and as a disgrace to the imperial throne by the Roman aristocracy. At the same time he was adored by the common people in Italy and the Greek speaking East. Years after his death Nero sightings generated the same excitement Elvis sightings do today. He was the only Roman emperor, and one of the very few historical figures, to pass into the realm of myth. Even today he still fiddles while Rome burns.

In his fascinating, revisionist study of the singing emperor, Champlin reveals a Nero who was a brilliant, learned and enormously energetic young man with a genius for self promotion. He was also a gifted poet and musician whose compositions were popular for centuries after his death at age 30. His passage into the eternal realm was his own doing - he portrayed his role in the death of his mother and wife on stage in the grandiose terms of myth and legend.

Rather than a reclusive megalomaniac who shut himself up in a vast palace which threatened to gobble up Rome, Champlin points out that his notorious Golden House was much closer to a public park and entertainment complex. Nero may not have lived there at all. The psychotic monster of today is the product of two thousand years of hostile spin but the truth still shines through the obscuring mist because the Nero legend was created by an artist.

I have two reservations about this beguiling, illuminating book. After Champlin convinces us that Nero did not set Rome on fire he does a sudden about face. On the basis of a statement by a single defiant conspirator, he concludes that Nero in fact probably did set the city ablaze. Apocalyptic expectation of the imminent cleansing of the world by fire makes it much more likely that Christian zealots were to blame.

My second reservation is that Champlin does not explore the power astrology held over first century Roman minds. Nero's elevation to mythological status was in large part due to his sudden and unexpected suicide which nothing but his blind faith in astrology adequately explains.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Champlin's Nero is worse, August 24, 2011
This review is from: Nero (Paperback)
I am not sure why so many reviewers here think that Edward Champlin is going easy on Nero or recasting him in a positive light. Champlin certainly dispenses with the caricatures that history has handed down to us, including the image of Nero fiddling as Rome burns. He shows us convincingly and I think definitively that Nero was not the buffoon of Roman tabloid authors like Cassius Dio.

The picture Champlin gives us of the last emperor of the Julio-Claudian line is far more intriguing. The Nero we find here is, in fact, far more devious and far more cruel in that his crimes were not the result of foolery but were premeditated far in advance of being carried out. Each act of brutality, be it the murder of his mother or the burning of Rome, Nero carefully staged and crafted in order to present himself to the world as a living hero of myth.

That's right, I think Champlin convincingly shows us that Nero not only burnt Rome, but planned its burning far in advance. In fact, he telegraphed Rome's burning in actions that are recorded by contemporary authors who did not realize the import of those very actions. Most notably, the blindness episode in the temple of Vesta. Most take the story to be just another example of Nero's craziness. Champlin shows us that it was in fact a carefully scripted part of Nero's show.

In the end, I think that those who find Champlin's Nero to be a revisionist and more favorable account of the emperor are missing the point. No, Champlin's Nero is not the Nero of popular myth. He is actually far worse.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Interesting point of view, July 26, 2013
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Nero (Paperback)
There is not a lot of information on Nero, other than the rumors that he was a terrible tyrannical ruler, this book doesn't go into the rumors it focuses more on the facts and history that is known about this ruler. He doesn't call him a flat out tyrant, he takes a very critical look into Nero's life. I would recommend this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars An Idea Whose Time Has Come - At Last?!?, July 19, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Nero (Paperback)
This book was published around the time the National Geographic special came out which cleared Nero of starting the Great Fire of Rome. The writer examines Nero as a good Pagan Imperator and Pontifex Maximus, the last of his line, not as a freak who just rolled out of bed every morning (or afternoon, or evening) planning what evil he could do with his free time. Anyone with an open mind should ignore the bizarre scribble on the cover, and get this book. Since the inside illustrations are in black and white, they show up better in this "print on demand" copy than most.

Page Davis
July 2014
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Nero
Nero by Edward Champlin (Paperback - September 30, 2005)
$27.50 $19.41
In stock but may require an extra 1-2 days to process.
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.