![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Title: Nero
Author: Edward Champlin
Genre: Biography (Classical)
Thingummies: 2.5 for execution, 2 for how much I actually enjoyed it
Synopsis: This biography of Nero assumes you already know all the details of Nero's life, but are unclear on who Oedipus is.
Thoughts:I think I may know less about Nero than when I started. Or rather, lack of information has been replaced by hopelessly unclear information, which is probably worse and might take another three books on Ancient Rome to clear up again.
Some of this is my fault. I picked this hastily, as the library was nearly closing. My knowledge of the Roman empire post-Augustus and pre-Byzantines is exceedingly sketchy, and a biography of Nero seemed like a titillating way to fill in some gaps. There were two Nero bios, the cover copy was similar, and I picked the one by the guy from my alma mater.
In the epilogue, he freely confesses that anyone who tried to read this to learn about Nero, his reign, his impact on Roman scoiety, events in the classical world at the same time, or general Roman culture would be sorely disappointed. (Why couldn't you have mentioned that in the first paragraph?) He says that enough books have been written on the topic, and he was trying to talk about something new. (Fair enough. My fault for choosing this one, since it was clearly written for people who have grown weary of the recitations of Nero's biography, of which I was not one.)
His thesis is basically that Nero wasn't nuts, but a consummate showman who did nothing at random. He was an actor who basically was "performing" his role, who used the myths permeating his society as commentary on his reign, and who basically tried to turn his entire empire into permanent Saturnalia.
Shame the author pretty much failed at this.
I had not gotten the impression that people really thought Nero was crazy. (It was Caligula, after all, who gave his horse political office.) Just immature, vicious, self-absorbed, and an overall bad ruler. None of which Champlin manages to disprove. So I kinda feel like he's tilting at the wrong windmills.
And the way he goes about doing so is horrifically confusing. Each chapter is organized around a theme. "Nero Throws a Banquet", "Nero Is an Attention-Whore", "Nero Likes Fires", "Nero Has Sexual Issues", etc. (Note: Not actual chapter titles.) Within the chapter, he presents examples somewhat in an order that kind of supports his argument (not all that well, though). Note: This order is not remotely chronological. There are occasional chronologies here, where he will list off every banquet Nero throws with the appropriate year, but these chronologies rarely show an interesting progression. Generally, though, you will have an example from the last year of his reign followed by one from before he was crowned followed by a random digression to some other Roman emporer from a different century followed by one from the middle of his reign. Trying to keep track of whether this is before he killed his mother or after he kicked his pregnant wife to death or whether the wife was still around when he had married himself off as a bride to a freedman is impossible. Sometimes there are dates, but when nothing is ever told in order, you'd need to keep a chart to keep track of what happened when. (I'm sorry, I can't remember which event happened in 42 and which in 51. Especially when there's absolutely no cause and effect discussed.)
You're expected to just know how he got adopted by the previous emporer (still don't get that) or what his younger brother's name was (still don't understand the relationship between the two, either). But the author does kindly spend two pages recounting the Oedipus and Odysseus myths. Because someone who knows the political details of how Nero tried to make a channel across the isthmus of Corinth (he what now?) didn't already read The Odyssey and Oedipus Rex...in grade school?
Because each chapter is completely unconnected, you circle around to the same events over and over. Each time, the actual event is not really described, though. So you get repeated references to his killing his mother, without ever really discussing why. We hear about how she might have tried to seduce him, about how he insisted on later playing roles like Oedipus that acknowledged his guilt and made it seem justified, and so on and so on, each time as if we've never talked about the topic before.
Meanwhile, his arguments don't seem to hold together. Perhaps it's because I still don't understand most salient details. But Champlin seems to be insisting that his subject isn't so bad, even as he admits over and over again that he is. He defends Nero from those who are shocked by his sexual conduct, because, really, he didn't have all those mistresses. He only had the few great loves of his life - his mother, the courtesan who looked like his mother, his pregnant wife he kicked to death, the slave who looked like his pregnant wife he kicked to death, the teenage boy who looked like his pregnant wife he kicked to death whom he castrated and insisted on marrying and calling by the dead wife's name, the other wife, and the dude he married as the bride (a marriage that was consummated in public). Just those great loves. And that giant bacchanalia where he had prostitutes wandering around in the street and everybody got to have sex with the noblewomen in the tents, but that was a gift to the people so it doesn't count. And that period where he'd run around with bodyguards in the middle of the night and break and steal stuff and rape anyone he could get his hands on, but that was totally a phase he grew out of so it doesn't really count, either. Other than that, he was totally only interested in the great loves of his life.
Oooookaay then.
I'm probably being unfair to the later parts of the book, as I'd completely emotionally checked out and was finally just skimming. I was so very clearly not the intended audience that some of my outrage is probably misplaced. But unless you're already a Nero scholar, don't touch this book with a ten-foot pole.
Author: Edward Champlin
Genre: Biography (Classical)
Thingummies: 2.5 for execution, 2 for how much I actually enjoyed it
Synopsis: This biography of Nero assumes you already know all the details of Nero's life, but are unclear on who Oedipus is.
Thoughts:I think I may know less about Nero than when I started. Or rather, lack of information has been replaced by hopelessly unclear information, which is probably worse and might take another three books on Ancient Rome to clear up again.
Some of this is my fault. I picked this hastily, as the library was nearly closing. My knowledge of the Roman empire post-Augustus and pre-Byzantines is exceedingly sketchy, and a biography of Nero seemed like a titillating way to fill in some gaps. There were two Nero bios, the cover copy was similar, and I picked the one by the guy from my alma mater.
In the epilogue, he freely confesses that anyone who tried to read this to learn about Nero, his reign, his impact on Roman scoiety, events in the classical world at the same time, or general Roman culture would be sorely disappointed. (Why couldn't you have mentioned that in the first paragraph?) He says that enough books have been written on the topic, and he was trying to talk about something new. (Fair enough. My fault for choosing this one, since it was clearly written for people who have grown weary of the recitations of Nero's biography, of which I was not one.)
His thesis is basically that Nero wasn't nuts, but a consummate showman who did nothing at random. He was an actor who basically was "performing" his role, who used the myths permeating his society as commentary on his reign, and who basically tried to turn his entire empire into permanent Saturnalia.
Shame the author pretty much failed at this.
I had not gotten the impression that people really thought Nero was crazy. (It was Caligula, after all, who gave his horse political office.) Just immature, vicious, self-absorbed, and an overall bad ruler. None of which Champlin manages to disprove. So I kinda feel like he's tilting at the wrong windmills.
And the way he goes about doing so is horrifically confusing. Each chapter is organized around a theme. "Nero Throws a Banquet", "Nero Is an Attention-Whore", "Nero Likes Fires", "Nero Has Sexual Issues", etc. (Note: Not actual chapter titles.) Within the chapter, he presents examples somewhat in an order that kind of supports his argument (not all that well, though). Note: This order is not remotely chronological. There are occasional chronologies here, where he will list off every banquet Nero throws with the appropriate year, but these chronologies rarely show an interesting progression. Generally, though, you will have an example from the last year of his reign followed by one from before he was crowned followed by a random digression to some other Roman emporer from a different century followed by one from the middle of his reign. Trying to keep track of whether this is before he killed his mother or after he kicked his pregnant wife to death or whether the wife was still around when he had married himself off as a bride to a freedman is impossible. Sometimes there are dates, but when nothing is ever told in order, you'd need to keep a chart to keep track of what happened when. (I'm sorry, I can't remember which event happened in 42 and which in 51. Especially when there's absolutely no cause and effect discussed.)
You're expected to just know how he got adopted by the previous emporer (still don't get that) or what his younger brother's name was (still don't understand the relationship between the two, either). But the author does kindly spend two pages recounting the Oedipus and Odysseus myths. Because someone who knows the political details of how Nero tried to make a channel across the isthmus of Corinth (he what now?) didn't already read The Odyssey and Oedipus Rex...in grade school?
Because each chapter is completely unconnected, you circle around to the same events over and over. Each time, the actual event is not really described, though. So you get repeated references to his killing his mother, without ever really discussing why. We hear about how she might have tried to seduce him, about how he insisted on later playing roles like Oedipus that acknowledged his guilt and made it seem justified, and so on and so on, each time as if we've never talked about the topic before.
Meanwhile, his arguments don't seem to hold together. Perhaps it's because I still don't understand most salient details. But Champlin seems to be insisting that his subject isn't so bad, even as he admits over and over again that he is. He defends Nero from those who are shocked by his sexual conduct, because, really, he didn't have all those mistresses. He only had the few great loves of his life - his mother, the courtesan who looked like his mother, his pregnant wife he kicked to death, the slave who looked like his pregnant wife he kicked to death, the teenage boy who looked like his pregnant wife he kicked to death whom he castrated and insisted on marrying and calling by the dead wife's name, the other wife, and the dude he married as the bride (a marriage that was consummated in public). Just those great loves. And that giant bacchanalia where he had prostitutes wandering around in the street and everybody got to have sex with the noblewomen in the tents, but that was a gift to the people so it doesn't count. And that period where he'd run around with bodyguards in the middle of the night and break and steal stuff and rape anyone he could get his hands on, but that was totally a phase he grew out of so it doesn't really count, either. Other than that, he was totally only interested in the great loves of his life.
Oooookaay then.
I'm probably being unfair to the later parts of the book, as I'd completely emotionally checked out and was finally just skimming. I was so very clearly not the intended audience that some of my outrage is probably misplaced. But unless you're already a Nero scholar, don't touch this book with a ten-foot pole.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-15 12:20 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2011-06-15 02:27 am (UTC)From:The book got great reviews on Amazon. I guess it's really Not For Me.