In 1930 Egyptologist Arthur Weigall published a monograph about Nero in which he sought to challenge the negative depiction of the princeps that had dominated portrayals since antiquity. His work was not well received. One reviewer branded his opinions as ‘hardly belong[ing] anywhere except in a comic history’ (H. Mattingly, JRS 20 [1930], 118). Such hostility brings to mind a conversation in Alan Bennett's The History Boys. When confronted with the idea that history's most monstrous acts should be seen ‘in context’, Posner responds: ‘But to put something in context is a step towards saying it can be understood and that it can be explained. And if it can be explained that it can be explained away’. The difficulty with Nero, as with other historical despots and tyrants, has been to find the line between understanding and explaining away. In this respect, D.’s new addition to Nero studies builds on the trails blazed by, among others, J. Elsner and J. Masters (Reflections of Nero [1994]) and E. Champlin (Nero [2003]), whose work has been integral to producing a clearer, more balanced picture of Nero and his principate. D.’s aim is not to ‘whitewash’ Nero, but rather to push further the characterisation of Nero as a rounded human being – not a ‘monster’, but a man who at times was led astray either by his own whims or by members of the court ‘Establishment’ in whom he placed his trust. In order to do this, D. determines which pieces of ancient evidence have the ‘ring of truth’ and which do not, and on that basis constructs an account of Nero's character that allows D. to identify the reasons for Nero's (mis-)behaviour. The resulting narrative is impressive in its depth, scope and treatment of the ancient evidence. However, certain conclusions D. reaches will strike some readers as problematic. For this reviewer, D.’s diagnosis of Nero as suffering from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) (pp. 288–93) is one example.
D. does not write an account of Nero's life or principate in chronological order. Rather, the book is separated into three parts, ‘Background’, ‘Assessment’ and ‘End’. In ‘Background’ D. breaks down some of the more commonplace assumptions made about Nero. He contends that Nero and Agrippina were on good terms in the period leading up to her death in 59 ce, that Nero's relationship with the senate was more or less sound, and that Nero could and did greatly rely on his ‘Establishment Team’ (what could otherwise be called Nero's ‘court’) during periods in which his own interest in governing waned, for example during the Greek tour in 66–67 ce. Moreover, D. downplays the role and effect of dissimulation and dissent in Nero's reign (contra V. Rudich, Political Dissidence under Nero [1993]), suggesting that ‘In every society there is two-way observation and response: “we all act”’ (p. 100). Instead, Nero's ‘break-outs’ (those instances when Nero ignored the advice of the ‘Establishment’, beginning with his excessive gifts to Doryphorus) were to blame for many of the emperor's more significant errors, particularly in the later years of his reign (pp. 164–8). This section of the book provides more than background; rather, it introduces the grounds for D.’s analysis in Part 2: that the worst parts of Nero's reign were the result either of bad advice from the ‘Establishment’ or of naivety on the part of the princeps.
D. dedicates the largest section of his book to an assessment of Nero's reign. The individual chapters tackle those characteristics or episodes that are regularly used to brand Nero a ‘monster’: his killings, his suspected arson, his role as persecutor, the construction of the Domus Aurea, madness, depravity and his irresponsible use of state finances. Throughout these chapters, D. adopts a generous reading of Nero's actions, i.e. the reading necessary to separate Nero almost entirely from the charges made against him. I take as examples his assessments of Nero's familial killings. D. dismisses relatively quickly the accusation that Nero caused Britannicus’ murder, and accounts even faster for Octavia's murder. Britannicus died from an epileptic fit for which Nero was not responsible; however, D. also contends that even if Nero had been to blame, the act would have been (largely) justified owing to the threat his adopted brother posed as a potential alternative emperor. Britannicus was, after all, another ‘son of a god’ (p. 175). Octavia was killed by Nero, but necessarily so – Poppaea was by this time pregnant, and had Octavia (the daughter of Claudius) remarried, her new husband could have challenged Nero's position (p. 191). For D., in this latter case, Nero was not innocent, but his actions can, to some extent, be understood. Assessing Agrippina's death is more complex. As D. had already established that Nero and his mother were on good terms in 59 ce, her death was not planned in advance, but rather Nero was the victim of a false allegation, made by Seneca, Burrus and Poppaea, that Agrippina herself had engineered the shipwreck to make it look as if Nero were trying to kill her. ‘Won over’ by their arguments, he sentenced his mother to death (pp. 186–7). This, argues D., went against Nero's natural conduct.
While members of the ‘Establishment’ were exasperated by Nero's ‘break-outs’, the ‘End’ of Nero's reign (Part 3 of D.’s book) was ultimately caused by the princeps’ failure to lead the army into battle in 68 ce and by his failure to produce an heir (p. 401). Significantly, D. does not believe Nero was ‘abandoned’ by either the senate or his court until the last moment, and, when he was, D. suggests that Epaphroditus and Phaon were in on a plan to lead Nero away from Rome (pp. 409–15). Until this last moment, Nero's fall was by no means inevitable.
Throughout the book, D. is at his most compelling when he is able to evaluate ancient sources. His discussion of the archaeological evidence for Agrippina's influence on Nero is one such example (pp. 38–41). Weaknesses arise, however, when a lack of evidence causes D. to find explanations for Nero's actions elsewhere. Of particular note is his attempt to psychoanalyse Nero and his relationships based on ideas from O. James's popular yet controversial book They F*** You Up (2007). D. suggests that, given scholarly interest in the subject, ‘it is impossible for historians and archaeologists to engage fully with the Neronian principate without taking some view of the mental condition of the princeps’ (p. 276). Therefore, his ‘study of Nero demands the gamble of psychoanalysis’ (p. 277). D. is right to call it a gamble. In the field of Greek military history, for example, the issue of whether it is appropriate to diagnose historical or literary figures with conditions such as PTSD is extremely contentious (for a summary of the arguments, see J. Crowley, ‘Beyond the Universal Soldier’, in P. Meineck and D. Konstan [edd.], Combat Trauma and the Ancient Greeks [2014]). Given these debates, D. needed to outline explicitly the reasons for his use of James's theories (above others) and how a work relating to the modern world can be applied to the ancient. Unfortunately, D. does neither of these things. Instead, he straightforwardly uses James's analysis of the effect of early childhood experiences on later life to argue that Nero did not show the requisite behaviour to suggest significant imbalance (pp. 276–86). At the same time D. contends that the traumatic events that occurred during his reign, in particular the death of his mother, were enough to bring on CPTSD-like symptoms in the emperor – this analysis is also influenced by James's work (pp. 288–9, incl. nn. 223, 232).
This book has clearly been a labour of love for its author, given that his ideas on the Neronian principate were first presented in 2008 (p. xiii). D.’s labour has produced a very thoughtful re-examination of the topic, one which reminds readers of the importance of asking difficult questions of awkward source material. While this reader would have liked greater interrogation of method, the book remains an important contribution to the field, and one that will prompt debates amongst interested readers for years to come.
