![]() 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. 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 book has a very overwhelming central thesis: that Nero never really ruled his empire. And it makes clear when elements seem out of place. ![]() It lets us consider key aspects of his reign all together. It allows us to see the development of Nero’s policies over the course of time. Breaking down a reign like this has several clear advantages. 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. 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. This book is not a conventional biography. ![]() ![]() But I do think that this book does something very different from the others. Champlin was (often overly) obsessive in trying to read every last hint of meaning in Nero’s public performances. Griffin tried hard to correct a lot of the myths grown up around Nero. 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. There are a lot of biographies of Nero out there. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |