M. has written an enjoyable book about the reception of Nero in late antique Christian writers, when, she argues, the Nero-Antichrist paradigm was established, being later revived in the nineteenth century. Thus M. challenges the traditional view of most biblical scholars who generally assume that the identification of the historical Nero with the Antichrist was constructed as early as the first century. The book, which comprises four chapters, followed by a short epilogue, is thoroughly researched and, in addition to specialists who work on Nero, will be most fitting for courses in translation on Nero and his Nachleben, as well as courses on early Christian thought.Footnote ¹

Chapter 1 introduces M.'s main thesis: the Nero-Antichrist paradigm began to be fashioned by the early commentators on the Bible, such as Victorinus of Pettau (third century), who wrote the first commentary on John's Revelation. Nero, who was already known as a cruel tyrant and a persecutor of Christians, became an easy candidate for the identification with the Antichrist, an interpretation that stuck with biblical scholars. Although most classicists rejected it, as late as B.W. Henderson's biography of Nero (1903), the emperor was identified with John's Beast.

Chapter 2 looks both at the historical Nero and at the early Christian writers, to conclude that, although Christian writers, especially from the third century onwards, took for granted the identification of Nero as the Antichrist, this interpretation was in fact not in the minds of first-century Christian writers: it was the product of a late antique reception phase. This interpretation continued to be prevalent and, although in the 1990s some notable German New Testament scholars began to challenge the communis opinio, the old assumption that early Christian writers associated the Antichrist with Nero is still widespread. M. offers a balanced overview of the perceptions of Nero both during his rule and soon after his death, when the ‘false Neros’ appeared, justly emphasising the difference between the receptions of Nero in Italy and in the provinces, particularly in the east, where the emperor's popularity endured much longer. In the end, the picture that emerges from the historiographical tradition is very different from ‘one of ubiquitous understanding of Nero as Antichrist as painted in many late-antique and some modern works’ (p. 50). The three most important texts for the paradigm are 1 and 2 John (dated to the late first or early second century), which are the only biblical texts to use the term ‘Antichrist’; 2 Thessalonians, whose ‘man of lawlessness’ was identified with Nero only by later Christians; and, especially, John's Revelation. Three characteristics of John's Beast have been particularly linked to Nero: the reference to the mortal wound, the number 666 and the series of seven mortal kings. M. systematically ‘deconstructs’ each argument in favour of the identification. What emerges, in the end, is that most features of John's apocalypse are conventional topoi.

Chapter 3 focuses on the construction of the paradigm in late antiquity, taking into consideration two texts in particular, the Sibylline Oracles and the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah, an apocalyptic account based on John's Revelation. To construct the Nero-Antichrist paradigm, these texts underlined, in particular, two features of Nero: his role as the first persecutor of Christians and his traditional link with the first martyrs, Peter and Paul. M.'s treatment of these impressively wide-ranging materials is clear and engaging, providing enough background information even for those who are unfamiliar with these works. What emerges is that, at the basis of the paradigm, there is always the historiographical tradition of Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, whose rhetorical characterisation of Nero, with which Christian writers were familiar, was adapted by late antique writers and retrofitted to the Antichrist of the biblical writers.

The paradigm, which faded out of fashion in the next several centuries, was revived in the nineteenth century (Chapter 4). After an introductory section M. focuses on three authors in particular. The influential French philosopher E. Renan published his Antichrist in 1873. Based on the historiographical tradition as well as on late antique interpretations, Renan established with certainty that John's Beast was Nero (Renan believed that the apostle John was in Rome during Nero's reign) and that Nero's Rome was essential to the subsequent dissemination of Christianity. F.W. Farrar, who was the Dean of Canterbury from 1895 until his death in 1903, wrote numerous essays on the history of early Christianity, but his most influential work was his historical novel Darkness and Dawn (1891), which drew on Renan's work and popularised the Nero-Antichrist paradigm to unprecedented levels. Despite some mixed reviews (e.g. Furneaux in CR 6 [1892], 118–19), both H. Sienkiewicz's Quo Vadis and W. Barrett's The Sign of the Cross followed Farrar's message: Nero was the Antichrist (owing to his role as the first persecutor of Christians), and John's Beast referred to Nero. If Renan and Farrar made Nero the quintessential Antichrist, the true enemy of Christianity, Nero's excessive and luxurious lifestyle also became appealing to certain intellectuals, particularly the Decadents. Indeed Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray continued the decadent image of Nero. For Wilde, Nero, with whom he identified (especially in his lifestyle), was not an unredeemable Antichrist, but an artist-man who struggled with his own self and sought individual freedom. M. identifies in Wilde's Oxford years a crucial period of his life, when he became fascinated with Catholicism (through the Oxford Movement) and was first exposed to decadent ideas (through the works of W. Pater). The identification of the protagonist of Wilde's novel with Nero's Petronius is certainly not new, but M. illustrates well the influences of Neronian Rome on Wilde's decadent ideas. Lastly, M. advances an intriguing theory. Since Wilde realised, after his imprisonment, that his ‘Neronian hours’ had cost him in creativity, M. sees Wilde's Nero as a metaphor for the author's internal struggle with his Christianity. Thus, unlike Renan's or Farrar's view that Nero was the ultimate, unredeemable sinner, for Wilde Nero could be saved by Christ. (My knowledge of Oscar Wilde and/or the decadent movement is superficial, so I am not able to assess whether M.'s interpretation is original and/or satisfactory. It is, however, enjoyable to read.)

In the epilogue M. surveys some of the most famous works on Nero to have appeared in the twentieth century, both in print and on the screen. She underlines, in particular, how film adaptations, such as the 1951 Hollywood epic Quo Vadis, often played down any reference to the paradigm, even though they were based on novels where Nero was explicitly identified with the Antichrist. The reasons were both practical (a movie had to focus only on some aspects of Nero) and ideological (after the experience of Hitler and Mussolini, audiences did not want to hear about the apocalyptical return of a mad tyrant). Both C. Laughton's interpretation of Nero in C.B. DeMille's The Sign of the Holy Cross (1932) and P. Ustinov's in Quo Vadis stress the emperor's madness, childish behaviour, effeminate features, but in neither picture, although they both exploit the popularity of the Christian myth of Nero as the first persecutor, does Nero possess the violence necessary for an Antichrist.

To a traditional Classicist the volume will present many unfamiliar references, for example, Theodoret of Cyrrhus or Quodvultdeus (see the list of references at p. 197). Since M.'s approach requires the discussion of the most diverse texts (and the book should, one hopes, appeal to a wide range of people), some basic information is needed for non-specialists. These sections are necessarily introductory: thus, for example, Classicists may find the discussion of Nero in Classical Literature (pp. 109ff.), though clearly executed, not particularly original, and, on the other hand, those who specialise in late antiquity surely know about writers such as Lactantius or Sulpicius Severus. Likewise, scholars have amply dealt with the character of Nero in Quo Vadis (both the novel and the film) and more recent picture adaptations. Yet this is a strength, not a weakness, of this book, for whose understanding and appreciation the guidance M. provides is necessary.