NERO

A new biography of the notorious emperor who, though hardly a saint, “was a more effective ruler than he has been given credit for.”

Everitt, prolific British historian of the ancient world, and journalist Ashworth write that few Romans regretted the collapse of the republic, a ramshackle system that dissolved in civil war. Almost everyone, the authors included, agrees that the winner, Octavian, later Augustus, began the empire on a high note. His rule, from 31 B.C.E. to 14 C.E., was absolute but largely peaceful and not terribly corrupt. His successors did not live up to his standards, and his bloodline ended with the widely reviled Nero and another civil war. The authors admit that none of the half-dozen Roman historians on whom modern scholars rely were contemporaries, and most portray Nero as an incompetent despot with an “exotic” sex life. However, Everitt and Ashworth add that not all of this is false and that he never wanted to be emperor. “Given the choice,” they write, “he would much rather have been a poet and professional musician.” He became emperor because of his fiercely ambitious mother, Agrippina, wife of his predecessor, Claudius, who also (according to contemporaries) poisoned her husband. Aside from the usual debauchery, Nero seems to have begun as a tolerable ruler, cultivating the Senate and army and allowing administrators to run the empire. Five years into his reign, he murdered Agrippina, a threat to his growing power. This seemed to mark the beginning of his decline, after which his behavior became more erratic, cruel, and extravagant. A revolt in the provinces spread to Rome, from which Nero fled and later committed suicide. The authors present a portrait that is decidedly less skeptical of the ancient historians than many other similar histories, and it makes for page-turning, informative reading for students of the era.

A nice addition to the literature about ancient Rome.