Nero [Illustrated] [Hardcover]

Richard Holland (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 25, 1998

Stories of Nero's tyrannical reign began before his body was cold and have continued to circulate; the monster who dallied while Rome burned, the tyrant who murdered his wife and his mother and who threw Christians to the lions. But is this the true story? The author seeks to overturn this popular conception of Nero and rescue the man from the myth by revealing Nero as a liberator, who tried to democratize the state. His story is told from his birth into the Imperial family through his mother's remarriage to the new Emperor Claudius--whom she would eventually murder; his education by Seneca; his marriage; his enthronement as Emperor at age 16; his role as patron; his love affair with Poppea and the murders of his wife and mother; the increasing enmity towards him; the Great Fire of Rome and building of the Golden Palace; the killing of the Christians; the death of Poppea and Nero's growing instability; treason trials and suicide writs; rebellion in Gaul and Spain; and Nero's suicide.

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

This revisionist biography of Nero succeeds in smashing the myth of the monster who callously fiddled while Rome burned. Although Holland admits that Nero was definitely no saint, he cites credible evidence suggesting that he was certainly no less cruel than many of his more revered predecessors. In fact, the historical record suggests that Nero's legacy was tarnished by an entrenched aristocracy that resented many of his unorthodox Hellenistic and egalitarian policies. By placing this much maligned emperor firmly in the social and cultural context of ancient Rome, the author is able to defend his supposition that Nero's reputation has suffered at the hands of modern scholars influenced by the exaggerated, inconsistent, and inaccurate accounts of his life written 50 or more years after his death. A convincing reappraisal of one of the ancient world's most intriguing rulers. Margaret Flanagan
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Product Details

• Hardcover: 256 pages
• Publisher: Sutton Publishing; illustrated edition edition (May 25, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0750924470
• ISBN-13: 978-0750924474
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.5 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 2.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,757,268 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

15 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Who is right? History or Richard Holland?, May 14, 2001

By 

Marco Maroni - See all my reviews

This review is from: Nero (Hardcover)

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.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Nero was nice, but a Classical work or Hollywood potboiler?, July 17, 2002

By 

Cathy Cusack (Sydney, Australia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Nero (Hardcover)

This book certainly goes a long way to restoring the reputation of Nero. Ancient sources should always be questioned as to motive, perspective and subjectivity, and Richard Holland has done an excellent job in this respect considering his lack of formal qualifications in classical studies. He also seems to have a good grasp of Latin without any qualifications in this area. His use of statistics (persecution and proscription in peaceful reigns such as Augustus vs those of the reign of the much maligned Nero) also adds weight to his believable theory that the artistic Nero genuinely wanted to reign peacefully.

However, sometimes Holland has used a little too much supposition in challenging the ancient sources and to conveniently fill gaps where they are lacking. I am also a little skeptical of his many psychological theories, as I would be of anyone who had no qualifications in this tricky area. Mother/child relationships and the perspective of children in this era cannot be compared to today's and really shouldn't be attempted without minute scrutiny of ancient sources - all of which are hugely silent in this area and were written from the male viewpoint in a paternalistic society anyway.

Quite alarming is Holland's statement "sex in the head is always a mark of decadence" (p.155). It is not footnoted, and on a personal note I would like some back up on this psychological theory, as I'm sure would most of the general single population. The definition of decadence is moral and cultural decline, and from personal experience (as a single woman) keeping sex in my head stops my own moral decline into promiscuity and contributing to cultural decline by running off with my girlfriend's boyfriends/husbands. Obsessive voyeurism as a substitute for sex doesn't lay the foundation at all. Are we only supposed to think about sex when we are doing it, otherwise to be labelled decadent? I would have thought the opposite to be true.

On top of this I am still scratching my head in the reasoning of the juxtaposition of the presentation of the life and pyschological analysis of Jesus in comparison to Nero. When one remembers Holland's background in journalism it rather smells of sensationalism.

In spite of the aforesaid and the fact that the book wavers between a classical analytical biography and a novel on which to base a Hollywood script, Holland presents a very personal Nero who I enjoyed getting to know.

2.0 out of 5 stars As much anti-Christian diatribe as interesting historical analysis, September 14, 2011

By 

J. R. Porta (Mesquite, TX) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Nero: The Man Behind the Myth (Paperback)

Other reviewers appear to have completely failed to mention the heavily anti-religious nature of much of Richard Holland's writing in this biography of Nero. This book contains a series of condemnations of many aspects of mainline Christianity, one after another, chapter after chapter. It seems that Holland used the book at least as much as a vehicle to promote his devoutly anti-Christian convictions as to convey his rather interesting defense of Nero (an artist thrust into a position that required a military leader [which he didn't have the capacity to be] rather than a monster). This is very unfortunate, because Holland at times begins to construct a credible case for the latter.

I suspect that the profusion of Holland's theological ramblings is the original source from which much disappointment about this work flows. A sizeable portion of the text is mere diversion into theological musings, theories, and anti-Christian bile that reveal Holland's deep and persistent antipathy towards mainline Christianity. His profound bias absolutely permeates this book. For example, in his Epilogue, entitled "The Beast of the Apocalypse", Holland states the author of the Bible's Book of Revelation had a "vengeful and probably deranged mind".

Holland has an axe to grind - his hatred for historical Christianity - and he relentlessly grinds it on his readers from the beginning to the end of this book. It is painful reading at times, because Holland is so unabashedly prejudiced and lacking in objectivity. As other reviewers have concurred, Holland isn't a particularly good historian. What they fail to state, however, is that he is an exceptionally poor theologian.

Holland is at his best when he delves into Nero's policies, practices and motivation and he at his worst in his ceaseless attempts to debunk Christian thought. Unfortunately, Holland wasted much of this book doing the latter, rather than the former. As a historian, Holland disappoints not only because of his occasional lack of attention to small details, but, more significantly, because of his inability to refrain from bashing orthodox theology long enough to focus on the significant historical elements of his biography which might have enabled the book to rise to the level of becoming a genuinely intriguing historical analysis.