This volume investigates how the Neronian era shaped literary and material culture in Flavian Rome (69–96 ce), building on interdisciplinary and intermedial approaches in classical studies. The landmark publication Flavian Rome. Culture, Image, Text (edd. A.J. Boyle and W.J. Dominik [2003]) did much to stimulate interest in the period’s rich blend of literary and material culture. Subsequent companion volumes focused on both Neronian and Flavian Rome encompass a similarly inclusive range of historical, archaeological, cultural and literary issues.Footnote ¹ Meanwhile, volumes or special issues dedicated to more narrow themes in Flavian literature have shown the value of close attention to a specific topic.Footnote ² Although encompassing an interdisciplinary range of perspectives like the companions, the volume under review follows recent literary studies in framing itself around a central question: how did Nero serve as model, obstacle or foil for the Flavians in their pursuit of legitimacy? The varying ways in which its ten contributors investigate this question highlight the shifting boundaries, reclaimed traditions and striking innovations that characterise this transformative period.

The Flavian rulers’ claims to power are commonly understood to have revolved around three interrelated themes (all of which served, to a greater or lesser extent, to obscure their complicity in Rome’s devastation during the civil conflicts of 68–69 ce): military triumph, especially the conquest of Judea; alignment with Augustan and ‘good’ Julio-Claudian precedents; and, most relevant for the volume under review, repudiation of Nero as a scapegoat and negative exemplum. Yet, as the chapters demonstrate, responses to Nero’s memory were ‘situational, selective, and not uniform’ (Meijer, p. 15). Contributors show how the Flavians, and authors under Flavian rule, not only distanced themselves from but also reappropriated – and subtly emulated – aspects of Nero’s legacy.

The volume’s strength lies in its range of literary, historical and material analyses, which examine how Nero’s memory was negotiated through urban transformation, imperial imagery and textual reinterpretation. A leitmotif throughout, keenly identified in Meijer’s excellent and thoroughgoing introduction, is the lively interplay between innovation and memory. Collectively, the volume’s chapters offer a compelling reappraisal of the relationship between the Flavian dynasty and its controversial predecessor.

Section 1, ‘Family Matters’, investigates representations of the imperial family, highlighting the ambivalent strategies employed both to distance the Flavians from Nero and to draw on his legacy. A. Gallia examines this tension through the case of the Temple of Divus Claudius on the Caelian Hill. By completing a project initiated but later abandoned by Nero, Vespasian both implicitly reproached Nero’s memory and removed him from the dynastic narrative, instead forging a link with the two deified Julio-Claudian emperors, Augustus and Claudius. The temple allowed Vespasian to bypass Nero in the dynastic narrative, aligning instead with Augustus and Claudius as divinised figures. Claudius served less as a model of virtue and more as a symbol of charismatic authority, a resource that the Flavians lacked in comparison to the pedigreed Julio-Claudians.

A. Ambühl’s contribution examines post-Flavian portrayals of Flavian women, such as Domitilla, Caenis, Berenice and Domitia Longina. Through discourse analysis of texts by Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus, Ambühl shows that these portrayals rely more on literary tropes than historical accuracy, functioning to position emperors as morally upright – or not – by association. Comparing these representations with those of Neronian women, notably Agrippina the Younger and Poppaea Sabina, Ambühl shows that the moral boundaries constructed between Flavian and Neronian figures were neither stable nor consistent. While Vespasian and Titus are cast as foils to Nero, literary depictions of Domitian’s relationships with women mirror Neronian motifs. This discussion clearly pinpoints the difficulty of disentangling historical reality from the ideological frameworks of retrospective narratives.

Section 2, ‘Building on Nero’s Rome’, explores how Flavian emperors reappropriated Neronian architecture, emphasising the ideological implications of continuity and rupture. A. Raimondi Cominesi investigates the Palatine Hill, showing that, while Vespasian and Titus publicly distanced themselves from Nero’s extravagant residential projects, they nonetheless incorporated parts of the Domus Transitoria and the Domus Aurea into their own building programmes. Their strategy, she argues, rebranded the Palatine as a symbol of Flavian modesty. Domitian’s approach, by contrast, marked a turning point: his expanded palace complex transformed the Palatine into a monumental emblem of Flavian rule, reflecting a more assertive engagement with Neronian precedents.Footnote ³

E. Moormann’s discussion of the Templum Pacis shows how the structure repurposed Neronian materials and imagery while also invoking Augustan values. Its restrained architecture and incorporation of elite artworks functioned as a rhetorical contrast to Nero’s excess, presenting Flavian rule as a return to public virtue. Like Raimondi Cominesi, Moormann distinguishes the more modest strategies of Vespasian and Titus from Domitian’s expansive additions, such as a new library and a greater focus on art, suggesting that Nero’s cultural legacy remained an inescapable reference point, even in efforts to supersede it.

Part 3, ‘Literary Responses to Nero’s Rome’, turns to Flavian literary engagements with Neronian Rome, with a particular focus on how mythological poetry negotiates historical and cultural memory. Heerink reads the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus – especially the Cyzicus episode – as an exploration of civil war trauma, with intertextual reference to Lucan’s Bellum Civile. Heerink argues that this intertextual strategy destabilises conventional notions of good and evil and displaces historical specificity through mythical repetition. Valerius blurs moral binaries and emphasises disorientation, using a mythical narrative to reflect on the psychic aftermath of 68–69 ce. T. Stover, focusing on Thebaid 1.114–64, examines how Statius channels Lucan through both imitation and competitive emulation (aemulatio), particularly in the poem’s first simile. The Theban civil war is thus both historical allegory and a site of literary rivalry. Stover argues that myth allows coded commentary on contemporary politics, enabling reflection on civil war through poetic play and providing critical distance through allegorical framing.

R. Nauta reassesses the relationship between Calpurnius Siculus and Flavian authors, arguing that Calpurnius predates and influences Silius Italicus, Statius and Martial. As Nauta comments, although most scholars, especially in Europe, adhere to the Neronian date, ‘Anglophone scholarship is usually agnostic or accepts the late date, explicitly or implicitly’ (p. 207 n. 1). Nauta’s analysis is persuasive, especially showing how the Flavian poets selectively appropriate Calpurnius’ themes in their negotiation of the respective generic boundaries. Nauta further observes that Flavian poets largely avoid Calpurnius’ panegyrics when praising Domitian. This distinction again reminds us that much of the effort to align the two figures stems from sources hostile to Domitian’s memory.

Section 4, ‘Presenting the Emperor in Early Imperial Rome’, examines how Flavian emperors shaped their public image, particularly in relation to youth, through visual and literary media. A. Wolsfeld analyses Flavian portraiture in coinage and statuary, identifying selective borrowings from Neronian iconography. While rejecting Nero’s youthful image, the Flavians adopted certain stylistic elements to reinforce dynastic continuity. Wolsfeld argues that Flavian imagery reflects not rupture, but strategic evolution. L. Cordes complements Wolsfeld’s visual analysis by studying literary treatments of Nero’s youth in Neronian, Flavian and later texts. Authors like Seneca, Calpurnius and Tacitus variously framed Nero’s youth as a liability or an asset. Early Flavian discourse contrasts Nero’s youthful failures with Vespasian’s experience. Later, youth became a criterion for comparing Domitian favourably with Nero, though later authors often re-collapse that distinction.

In Section 5, ‘Looking Back’, V. Schulz concludes the volume with a study of how Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio framed Nero in relation to the Flavians. These historians often align Nero with Domitian to distinguish him from Vespasian and Titus, reinforcing a retrospective dichotomy. Schulz also draws on less canonical texts (e.g. Philostratus and early Christian and Jewish texts), which depict the Flavians not as redeemers of Nero’s damage, but as brutal conquerors. Echoing Ambühl’s caution, Schulz reminds us of the ideological limits imposed by the surviving sources.

The volume is well edited and accessibly written. Each chapter is self-contained and supported by its own bibliography and notes, making the volume valuable for both scholars and upper-level students. The high cost of the print version is offset by an open-access digital edition.

The introduction offers the obligatory caveat that the book cannot offer comprehensive coverage of such a complex set of evidence; the book starts conversations in the hope of stimulating further scholarship (Meijer, p.16). For example, Martial – arguably the Flavian author most directly concerned with Nero’s lingering presence – receives no dedicated chapter. While his work is cited by several contributors (notably Gallia, Ambühl, Raimondi Cominesi and Cordes), none fully investigate his sustained engagement with Neronian memory across the Liber Spectaculorum and the Epigrams. Nauta’s treatment offers more sustained attention but serves a narrower agenda, focused on his relationship to Calpurnius.

To conclude, the volume demonstrates that, rather than rejecting Nero outright, Flavian authors and rulers variously emulated, repurposed or distanced themselves from his legacy across literary, visual and architectural media. The contributions collectively illuminate evolving practices of representation and genre in this transitional period, with consequences that extend well beyond the dynasty itself.