Sign in with Facebook
Jan-Maat's Reviews > SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome
SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome
by
by
I love Mary Beard. She would have my vote to become President of the Confederated Britannic Republics - without even needing to shake my hand. Judging from her treatment of trolls she seems to be an exemplary human, and while she has so far been unable to reform hardened (view spoiler) arsehole Nassim Nicholas Taleb, some tasks after all do require divine intervention - remember Caesar, that you are human. As a historian however I don't think she is great. I haven't noticed a grand transformative insight from her, her political analysis, I feel, is a continuation of Syme's The Roman Revolution, and Syme was no great original either, in a sense what he did was take Mussolini and the claims of the Fascists to be reviving ancient Rome at face value, not as the Black Shirts felt - to glorify themselves, but to turn their cudgels back on their own claims and to see the street-fighting and thuggery inherent in Roman politics ancient and modern.
Few scholars though ever get to be original, perhaps the last time any one could be truly original was back in the BC years and even then not often and far less often than people claimed. Among her gifts though Beard is a communicator and it is easy for me listening to her on the TV or reading this book to imagine her in the lecture theatre. And if you are in search of claims to be original or big striking ideas then that most middle of the road product - a conventional history of a conventional topic as this is might well be the worst place to look.
Whether you might like or dislike this book I imagine depends on what you are expecting and what you are looking for, for myself I might have liked more explicit discussion of the classical writers who she draws upon, and more too about the roads, aqueducts and use of concrete, but then we all have our peculiarities. As a standard history of Rome from the beginning to 212 AD - she uses BCE and CE through which I dislike deeply (view spoiler) - as I said we all have our peculiarities.
The Middle Way
The main tendency of the text, unsurprising in a book aspiring to be the conventional history of a conventional topic is it's middle of the roadism. For example she points out that contrary to the traditional division of the Roman Emperors in to good and bad, that some historians think that the 'bad' ones misunderstood. She evades stating exactly where she stands on the issue by pointing out from the perspective of the ruled that the difference between a 'good' and a 'bad' emperor was not really appreciable beyond the ranks of the elite. Actually I quite like this too, she gives the impression of not accepting the pretensions of the great and the good.
Citizenship
The major theme of the whole book and for Beard the one fact that explains Roman success from collection of huts by the river Tiber to mighty empire is citizenship and this is why she ends the book in 212 AD, the year in which all inhabitants of the empire where granted Roman citizenship. In the early days of the republic, Beard says, when the Romans defeated a neighbour they tied them into a relationship with Rome. They had to provide a contribution of soldiers to help Rome in fighting its enemies and in return got to share in any loot. They happened upon this arrangement purely out of efficiency, the early Romans didn't have the resources to police, tax or control those they defeated, letting them run their own affairs was easy, obliging them to provide soldiers the simplest way to extract value, simply as a by-product it created communities which were not Roman but through sharing in Rome's victories benefited from their association, leading members of these communities might be granted Roman citizenship or entire communities might be granted clusters of rights which further developed their interrelationship with Rome. Rights such as freedom from local courts and right of appeal to Roman ones, and if found guilty the right to be beheaded rather than a painful and prolonged form of death. This was a mechanism which engaged diverse elites across the Mediterranean world and created a double citizenship - one could be a citizen of Rome and of any other city in which you happened to have been born and raised and have access to a different sets of rights.
Therefore we can ask of the Italian Social war, fought between Rome and it's allies, were they fighting to get deeper in, or out of Rome's embrace? Beard points out that the Roman rule always relied on collaboration and many of the most famous rebels against Rome had started out as collaborators.
The gifting of citizenship to all isn't the end of two or multi tier relationships between Rome and those subject to it, but simply revealed more clearly the division between honestiores and humiliores (p.529), or the elites and the rest as we could say.
Augustus
For Beard the first thousand years (give or take) of Rome are a continuity. The same fundamental mechanisms, structures and dynamics run on until 212 AD then there is a shift towards late antiquity and a Christian Empire, implicitly something so deeply different that it would require another book.
The significant point was the career of Augustus who stabilised the unsteady republic: "Autocracy represented, in a sense, an end of history...unlike the story of the development of the republic and the growth of Imperial power, which revolutionised almost every aspect of the world of Rome, there was no fundamental change in the structure of Roman politics, empire or society between the end of the first century BCE and the end of the second century CE" (p.336). This I felt is a very big claim. But reading her book not a wild one.
Augustus took at first as his symbol the enigmatic puzzle setter- the Sphinx. His adopted name, Beard tells us was suggestive but meaningless, it all reminded me of certain Mega companies currently busy changing the world whose names reveal nothing of the nature of their operations or even their chosen field of operation. So he too allowed everyone to read what they wanted into him. Did he set out to make himself a king in all but name or did he cautiously explore the limits of the possible until he found himself there? It's all very mysterious but Beard shows us something of the concerted effort he went to in establishing a brand and in making it near impossible for anyone else to do what he did - to come in from the margins and establish a political machine around himself.
Still Beard says in a way he was nothing new. Rome had being tending toward autocracy for at least a hundred years before he made it permanent. Beard describes Pompey as the first Emperor in terms of his public image and public works, an idea familiar from Warwick Bell's Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, Rome eventually modelling itself on the Greek monarchies of the near-east, heirs to Alexander the Great, cultural patrons who might in their lifetimes be honoured as gods. This apparently was fine in Rome, just so long as you didn't want to be called a king - that alone was unforgivable.(view spoiler)
the invention of tradition
Beard says that one of Augustus's tricks was 'radical traditionalism', so he had the powers of a Tribune, but not the title and wasn't elected to the office - it sounded traditional and reassuring but at the same time was completely new and radical. This Beard tells us wasn't anything new, and several times she says that when Romans spoke in terms of the good old days or claimed great antiquity for a practise that in fact this covered up that they either didn't know or where covering over some kind of innovation which brings me to where Beard begins her book.
In the beginning was the Catiline conspiracy
Beard begins her history in the middle of the story with Cierco's denunciation of Catiline, the point that I felt Beard was making was that Roman history more or less began around that time, with authors from then on either looking back or discussing the events of their own life times, and when looking back they saw past events in the light of the struggles with which they were familiar. Before than we largely have to rely on the archaeology, such earlier writers as do survive in fragments are writing retrospectively too. Because of the publication of Cierco's speeches and the preservation of thousands of his letters we can get uniquely close, though only from one perspective, to events as they were happening.
Finally
Every generation will have it's own history of Rome, indeed every generation requires it's own one as evidence emerges still from the mud of northern Europe and Egyptian rubbish dumps, Beard's book is a fine introductory text covering the basics and showing some of the controversies and complexities in contemporary scholarship. My idealistic views of the Gracchi brothers were challenged - Beard reminds me again to read Plutarch (view spoiler), I was reminded repeatedly that the study of Roman history is a good primer for studying all history, reading about Sulla I heard news about the body of General Franco - so little has changed. We all live within the same problem that Polybius hints at - what is the purpose of a state, who is for, what can it do, as we co-exist in groups larger than Dunbar's number the same issues repeat themselves.
Few scholars though ever get to be original, perhaps the last time any one could be truly original was back in the BC years and even then not often and far less often than people claimed. Among her gifts though Beard is a communicator and it is easy for me listening to her on the TV or reading this book to imagine her in the lecture theatre. And if you are in search of claims to be original or big striking ideas then that most middle of the road product - a conventional history of a conventional topic as this is might well be the worst place to look.
Whether you might like or dislike this book I imagine depends on what you are expecting and what you are looking for, for myself I might have liked more explicit discussion of the classical writers who she draws upon, and more too about the roads, aqueducts and use of concrete, but then we all have our peculiarities. As a standard history of Rome from the beginning to 212 AD - she uses BCE and CE through which I dislike deeply (view spoiler) - as I said we all have our peculiarities.
The Middle Way
The main tendency of the text, unsurprising in a book aspiring to be the conventional history of a conventional topic is it's middle of the roadism. For example she points out that contrary to the traditional division of the Roman Emperors in to good and bad, that some historians think that the 'bad' ones misunderstood. She evades stating exactly where she stands on the issue by pointing out from the perspective of the ruled that the difference between a 'good' and a 'bad' emperor was not really appreciable beyond the ranks of the elite. Actually I quite like this too, she gives the impression of not accepting the pretensions of the great and the good.
Citizenship
The major theme of the whole book and for Beard the one fact that explains Roman success from collection of huts by the river Tiber to mighty empire is citizenship and this is why she ends the book in 212 AD, the year in which all inhabitants of the empire where granted Roman citizenship. In the early days of the republic, Beard says, when the Romans defeated a neighbour they tied them into a relationship with Rome. They had to provide a contribution of soldiers to help Rome in fighting its enemies and in return got to share in any loot. They happened upon this arrangement purely out of efficiency, the early Romans didn't have the resources to police, tax or control those they defeated, letting them run their own affairs was easy, obliging them to provide soldiers the simplest way to extract value, simply as a by-product it created communities which were not Roman but through sharing in Rome's victories benefited from their association, leading members of these communities might be granted Roman citizenship or entire communities might be granted clusters of rights which further developed their interrelationship with Rome. Rights such as freedom from local courts and right of appeal to Roman ones, and if found guilty the right to be beheaded rather than a painful and prolonged form of death. This was a mechanism which engaged diverse elites across the Mediterranean world and created a double citizenship - one could be a citizen of Rome and of any other city in which you happened to have been born and raised and have access to a different sets of rights.
Therefore we can ask of the Italian Social war, fought between Rome and it's allies, were they fighting to get deeper in, or out of Rome's embrace? Beard points out that the Roman rule always relied on collaboration and many of the most famous rebels against Rome had started out as collaborators.
The gifting of citizenship to all isn't the end of two or multi tier relationships between Rome and those subject to it, but simply revealed more clearly the division between honestiores and humiliores (p.529), or the elites and the rest as we could say.
Augustus
For Beard the first thousand years (give or take) of Rome are a continuity. The same fundamental mechanisms, structures and dynamics run on until 212 AD then there is a shift towards late antiquity and a Christian Empire, implicitly something so deeply different that it would require another book.
The significant point was the career of Augustus who stabilised the unsteady republic: "Autocracy represented, in a sense, an end of history...unlike the story of the development of the republic and the growth of Imperial power, which revolutionised almost every aspect of the world of Rome, there was no fundamental change in the structure of Roman politics, empire or society between the end of the first century BCE and the end of the second century CE" (p.336). This I felt is a very big claim. But reading her book not a wild one.
Augustus took at first as his symbol the enigmatic puzzle setter- the Sphinx. His adopted name, Beard tells us was suggestive but meaningless, it all reminded me of certain Mega companies currently busy changing the world whose names reveal nothing of the nature of their operations or even their chosen field of operation. So he too allowed everyone to read what they wanted into him. Did he set out to make himself a king in all but name or did he cautiously explore the limits of the possible until he found himself there? It's all very mysterious but Beard shows us something of the concerted effort he went to in establishing a brand and in making it near impossible for anyone else to do what he did - to come in from the margins and establish a political machine around himself.
Still Beard says in a way he was nothing new. Rome had being tending toward autocracy for at least a hundred years before he made it permanent. Beard describes Pompey as the first Emperor in terms of his public image and public works, an idea familiar from Warwick Bell's Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, Rome eventually modelling itself on the Greek monarchies of the near-east, heirs to Alexander the Great, cultural patrons who might in their lifetimes be honoured as gods. This apparently was fine in Rome, just so long as you didn't want to be called a king - that alone was unforgivable.(view spoiler)
the invention of tradition
Beard says that one of Augustus's tricks was 'radical traditionalism', so he had the powers of a Tribune, but not the title and wasn't elected to the office - it sounded traditional and reassuring but at the same time was completely new and radical. This Beard tells us wasn't anything new, and several times she says that when Romans spoke in terms of the good old days or claimed great antiquity for a practise that in fact this covered up that they either didn't know or where covering over some kind of innovation which brings me to where Beard begins her book.
In the beginning was the Catiline conspiracy
Beard begins her history in the middle of the story with Cierco's denunciation of Catiline, the point that I felt Beard was making was that Roman history more or less began around that time, with authors from then on either looking back or discussing the events of their own life times, and when looking back they saw past events in the light of the struggles with which they were familiar. Before than we largely have to rely on the archaeology, such earlier writers as do survive in fragments are writing retrospectively too. Because of the publication of Cierco's speeches and the preservation of thousands of his letters we can get uniquely close, though only from one perspective, to events as they were happening.
Finally
Every generation will have it's own history of Rome, indeed every generation requires it's own one as evidence emerges still from the mud of northern Europe and Egyptian rubbish dumps, Beard's book is a fine introductory text covering the basics and showing some of the controversies and complexities in contemporary scholarship. My idealistic views of the Gracchi brothers were challenged - Beard reminds me again to read Plutarch (view spoiler), I was reminded repeatedly that the study of Roman history is a good primer for studying all history, reading about Sulla I heard news about the body of General Franco - so little has changed. We all live within the same problem that Polybius hints at - what is the purpose of a state, who is for, what can it do, as we co-exist in groups larger than Dunbar's number the same issues repeat themselves.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
SPQR.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
September 10, 2018
–
Started Reading
September 10, 2018
– Shelved
September 12, 2018
–
23.43%
"The 1st known Roman Laws are hard to interpret: "The idea that a defaulting debtor who had several creditors could be put to death & his body divided between them, in appropriately sized pieces, according to the amount owed, looks like one such misunderstanding (or so many modern critics have hoped)""
page
142
September 12, 2018
–
26.9%
""Roman dominion was primarily over people, not places. As Livy saw, the relations that the Romans formed with those people were the key to the dynamics of early Roman expansion""
page
163
September 13, 2018
–
32.67%
"The rise of Rome to be a major power: "What must it have felt like to be confronted with a stream of foreigners from as far away as it was possible to imagine, speaking too quickly in a language you only just understood, apparently extremely bothered about a small piece of land of which you knew nothing, & dangerously liable to bow down & kiss your feet?""
page
198
September 13, 2018
–
33.83%
""The truth is that Cato's version of the old-fashioned, no-nonsense Roman values was as much an invention of his own day as a defence of long- standing Roman traditions""
page
205
September 15, 2018
–
52.64%
""The total value of [Cierco's] property portfolio was something in the order of 13,000,000 sesterces. In the eyes of ordinary Romans this was a vast holding, worth enough to keep more than 25,000 poor families alive for a year...but it did not put Cierco into the bracket of the super-rich"
plus ca change"
page
319
plus ca change"
September 15, 2018
–
57.43%
"Cleopatra's death "Suicide by snake bite is a hard feat to pull off, & anyway the most reliably deadly snakes would be far too hefty to conceal in even a regal fruit basket...at the very least [Augustus] may have facilitated her death"
in life if you what certain things to happen, you can't leave it to chance or the judgement of others"
page
348
in life if you what certain things to happen, you can't leave it to chance or the judgement of others"
September 16, 2018
–
67.0%
""If Gaius or Nero or Domitian really were as irresponsible, sadistic & mad as they are painted, it made little or no difference to how Roman politics & empire worked behind the headline anecdotes""
page
406
September 16, 2018
–
76.57%
"law & legal services " we do know, from another papyrus document, that at the beginning of the 3rd century CE one governor of Egypt (the prefect, as he was called there) had received in just 3 days in a single place more than 1,800 petitions from those wanting to press cases or complaints. The majority of them must have been brushed under the carpet""
page
464
September 16, 2018
–
80.2%
""everywhere there were statues of Emperors in splendid suits of armour, & images of conquered, bound & trampled barbarians. Perhaps that was the easiest way to reconcile the conflicting legacy of the 1st Augustus: art & symbol could usefully compensate for the fact that in real life there was less trampling of barbarians now going on""
page
486
September 16, 2018
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-36 of 36 (36 new)
date
newest »
newest »
I found this book enjoyable as an introduction to Roman history. I don't have enough depth of knowledge to critique it from a technical viewpoint.I too would be happy to see Mary Beard as President :)
Antonomasia wrote: "In the book does she do much historiography and give perspective on her own interpretations and the context she works in? Her TV series Ultimate Rome: Empire without Limit sometimes felt like a p..."
strictly speaking it is closer to 500 pages! She mostly avoids historiography, at most she says this is what used to be thought until the discovery of... or pointing out that some hold opinion x, but others y but the main thing to bear in mind is z.
I can't say I noticed a tendency for the book to campaign for any political cause, possibly because it took longer to write than the TV series?
I missed Cheddar man becoming a political football, sorry
Ray wrote: "I lfound this book enjoyable as an introduction to Roman history. I don't have enough depth of knowledge to critique it from a technical viewpoint.I too would be happy to see Mary Beard as Presid..."
yes I think it is a great introduction and there are limits to what it is sensible to do in an introduction - you probably don't want to throw the reader into arguments over the taxation of Roman Egypt or the town planning of Lesser Germany or similar!
Excellent review. Not surprising, that.
Carol wrote: "Excellent review. Not surprising, that."thank you Carol
Having bought this for my children in the vain hope there would come a moment they would read it, your excellent review has convinced me to encourage them another time to read it (or to brood on a cunning plan to make them do so, dinner in exchange for a chapter for instance, or reading it aloud so we can read it together).
Ilse wrote: "Having bought this for my children in the vain hope there would come a moment they would read it, your excellent review has convinced me to encourage them another time to read it (or to brood on a ..."Hmm I fear a bit long, a bit too technical and not bloody enough nor lavishly illustrated enough for children, I don't think I would have managed a book like this before the age of 13-14, maybe older, since the first chapter on Catiline is free standing you could try that, but I feel for younger readers something more brutally colourful might be a better choice.
Marvellous review, Jan-Maat! And I'm fascinated by the idea of yours that "Every generation will have it's own history of Rome". Seems to be so true.
Netta wrote: "Marvellous review, Jan-Maat! And I'm fascinated by the idea of yours that "Every generation will have it's own history of Rome". Seems to be so true."thank you very much Netta
Nice review, Jan. I just read this and couldn't quite put my finger on why I didn't enjoy it more. At one point Beard quotes Gibbon doing a bit of panegyric on the 'good emperors', - she chastises him for complacency, though my own feeling on reading it was that I wish Beard would come down a little harder on things, which might enliven the writing a bit. But your point about it being an introduction is the obvious rejoinder - and me being a novice, I should be glad for her evenhandedness.
William wrote: "Nice review, Jan. I just read this and couldn't quite put my finger on why I didn't enjoy it more. At one point Beard quotes Gibbon doing a bit of panegyric on the 'good emperors', - she chastises ..."you are right, with a couple of exceptions -and those just to suggest that thee are other issues to consider - she is very careful not to state what she thinks about any given topic, a bit more opinion might have given more colour, but I guess she is saying 'this is the current state of thinking about Rome' rather than 'this is what I think about Rome'.
Don’t we even love the flaws of those we love?
BlackOxford wrote: "Don’t we even love the flaws of those we love?"that is what Ovid says
Great review! I especially enjoy the gilded turd of time construction, having never considered how you point out that change means nothing.
Ran wrote: "Great review! I especially enjoy the gilded turd of time construction, having never considered how you point out that change means nothing."thank you, although in truth I think bce/ce is worse than meaningless, it pretends that a year counting system that has a precise context is in fact universal and neutral. bc/ad is at least blatant about what it it is
Thanks for great review, Jan-Maat :) and I love Mary, too :)) she got me interested in Ancient Rome again .....
Beata wrote: "Thanks for great review, Jan-Maat :) and I love Mary, too :)) she got me interested in Ancient Rome again ....."You're welcome Beata, glad to share the love!
Hope I can find the time to read this.
Wonder what Beard does with Cicero's failure in denouncing Catiline, who remained until Cato the younger won the Senate vote for death penalty, opposing even Caesar's recommendation of exile Catiline, who had to flee. I recall being shocked to read this... Great orator, assassinated for his oratory, Cicero, but not the convincer of the Senate.
Ted wrote: "Hope I can find the time to read this."oh it is not essential f you are being very strict with your reading
Alan wrote: "Wonder what Beard does with Cicero's failure in denouncing Catiline, who remained until Cato the younger won the Senate vote for death penalty, opposing even Caesar's recommendation of exile Catili..."the business of Cataline is were she starts so you can just look at the opening to know if you are interested in the whole thing or not, from memory she takes it as showing us that Cicero was an ambitious politician who wanted a big success to call his own with a cynical attitude to legal practise when it suited him
I agree with your use of BC and CE for many reasons, including our parochial use of it.
Beth wrote: "I agree with your use of BC and CE for many reasons, including our parochial use of it."well that makes a couple of us, someday we can form a club :)
Jan-Maat wrote: "well that makes a couple of us, someday we can form a club :)"Make it two and a half. I totally agree with your reasoning, but in practice, I often use BCE and CE to avoid offending and defending.
Cecily wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "well that makes a couple of us, someday we can form a club :)"Make it two and a half. I totally agree with your reasoning, but in practice, I often use BCE and CE to avoid offend..."
to my mind if anyone is offended by BC/AD they will be offended by BCE/CE as well as it is precisely the same system with a touch of PR added!
But they're not! That's why it's so tiresome to argue the point!
Cecily wrote: "But they're not! That's why it's so tiresome to argue the point!"that's why there is money to be made in PR I suppose?
Jan-Maat wrote: "Cecily wrote: "But they're not! That's why it's so tiresome to argue the point!"that's why there is money to be made in PR I suppose?"
In my 'world', I find it refreshing to point out things like our present
System of dating, Which is BCE, and CE; or BC and AD. There is no better place to bring out this distinction than when reading a historical work, just like this one. The point is that our present is a blip or product of the framework of our current lives. The point of reading this book, or thinking of these different concepts is to broaden our minds.
Beth wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "Cecily wrote: "But they're not! That's why it's so tiresome to argue the point!"that's why there is money to be made in PR I suppose?"
In my 'world', I find it refreshing to poi..."
Putting it much more briefly, what matters is that WE have this knowledge. This author seeks to further inform all of us.
One reviewer commented that the crusifix iction was not mentioned in this book. Now that is an interesting comment! That reviewer's commemt is a starting point to talk about the nature of history and about each moment in time.
Beth wrote: "The point is that our present is a blip or product of the framework of our current lives. The point of reading this book, or thinking of these different concepts is to broaden our minds."nicely said
Beth wrote: "One reviewer commented that the crusifix iction was not mentioned in this book. Now that is an interesting comment! That reviewer's commemt is a starting point to talk about the nature of history and about each moment in time.."I don't know, that seems to me more an issue of the expectations and desires that a reader brings to a book, though they might say that crucifixion is 'history' while diet, or the daily lives of slaves or women is not 'history'
I’ve just starting reading this pretty much as an introduction - I’m not sure I’ve read any Roman history since school Latin classes or bits and pieces like Graves that aren’t really history. I enjoy Mary Beard’s style and your review.
Lyn wrote: "I’ve just starting reading this pretty much as an introduction - I’m not sure I’ve read any Roman history since school Latin classes or bits and pieces like Graves that aren’t really history. I enj..."have fun reading it, Lyn, I don't think you will need your Latin, at least not much!
I have reread this book, and enjoyed it more than the first time, and have also reread your review, which I could also follow it better than the first time.I am glad this is a history of improvements - not so for the Romans.
Kalliope wrote: "I have reread this book, and enjoyed it more than the first time, and have also reread your review, which I could also follow it better than the first time.I am glad this is a history of improvem..."
Glad to hear it Kalliope, if you believe certain of the old Roman historians things were always getting worse and so Roman history was the story of discovering ever new depths to which Romans and their rulers would sink to!
Her TV series Ultimate Rome: Empire without Limit sometimes felt like a party political broadcast on behalf of Remain, and whilst Remain is my own preference, I think that historians and other academics need to make more effort to stop slanting their work in such ways that it only speaks to certain sections of the public, and ends up alienating others further.
(See also the Cheddar Man business, which was not peer-reviewed before being put in press-releases and on TV, and later turned out to have been overegged, by which time it had become, to mix metaphors, a political football.)
SPQR is one I might consider for audio, but I don't like the Romans enough to read a 600 page book on them.